Hubbry Logo
China–India relationsChina–India relationsMain
Open search
China–India relations
Community hub
China–India relations
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
China–India relations
China–India relations
from Wikipedia

China–India relations
Map indicating locations of China and India

China

India
Diplomatic mission
Embassy of China, New DelhiEmbassy of India, Beijing
Envoy
China Ambassador to India Xu FeihongIndia Ambassador to China Pradeep Kumar Rawat
The Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi meeting the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, in Wuhan, China during a Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit on 31 August 2025

China and India maintained peaceful relations for thousands of years, but their relationship has varied since the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)'s victory in the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and the annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China. The two nations have sought economic cooperation with each other, while frequent border disputes and economic nationalism in both countries are major points of contention.

Cultural and economic relations between China and India date back to ancient times. The Silk Road not only served as a major trade route between India and China, but is also credited for facilitating the spread of Buddhism from India to East Asia.[1] During the 19th century, China was involved in a growing opium trade with the East India Company, which exported opium grown in India.[2][3] During World War II, both British India and the Republic of China (ROC) played a crucial role in halting the progress of Imperial Japan.[4] After India became independent in 1947, it established relations with the ROC. The modern Sino-Indian diplomatic relationship began in 1950, when India was among the first noncommunist countries to end formal relations with the Republic of China and recognise the PRC as the legitimate government of both Mainland China and Taiwan. China and India are two of the major regional powers in Asia, and are the two most populous countries and among the fastest growing major economies in the world.

Growth in diplomatic and economic influence has increased the significance of their bilateral relationship. Between 2008 and 2021, China was India's largest trading partner, and the two countries have extended their strategic and military relations.[5][6][7][8] However, conflict of interest leads to hostility. India has a large trade deficit that is favoured towards China. The two countries failed to resolve their border dispute and Indian media outlets have repeatedly reported Chinese military incursions into Indian territory.[9] And relations between contemporary China and India have been characterised by border disputes, resulting in three military conflicts – the Sino-Indian War of 1962, the border clashes in Nathu La and Cho La in 1967, and the 1987 Sumdorong Chu standoff.[10] Since the late 1980s, both countries have successfully rebuilt diplomatic and economic ties.

Since 2013, border disputes have reemerged to take centre stage in the two countries' mutual relations. In early 2018, the two armies got engaged in a standoff at the Doklam plateau along the disputed Bhutan-China border.[11] Since summer 2020, armed standoffs and skirmishes at multiple locations along the entire Sino-Indian border escalated. A serious clash occurred in the Galwan Valley, resulting in the death of 20 Indian soldiers and many Chinese soldiers.[12] Both countries have steadily established military infrastructure along border areas, including amidst the 2020 China–India skirmishes.[9][13] Additionally, India remains wary about China's strong strategic bilateral relations with Pakistan,[14] and China's relations to separatist groups in Northeast India,[15] while China has expressed concerns about Indian military and economic activities in the disputed South China Sea[16] as well as hosting of anti-China activity from Tibetan exiles.[17][18] Today, the South Asian region is the premier site of intensified great power competition between China and India.[19]

Geopolitical overview

[edit]
Eastern and Southern Asia.
(The border between the People's Republic of China and the India over Arunachal Pradesh/South Tibet reflects actual control, without dotted line showing claims.)

The China–India border straddles the Himalayas, with Nepal and Bhutan acting as buffer states. Parts of the disputed Kashmir region claimed by India (J&K and Ladakh) are claimed and administered by either Pakistan (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan) or by the PRC (Aksai Chin). The Government of Pakistan, on its maps, shows the Aksai Chin area as mostly within China and labels the boundary "Frontier Undefined", while India holds that Aksai Chin is illegally occupied by the PRC. China and India also dispute most of Arunachal Pradesh.[20]

Not only is China's India policy shaped by greater competition with the United States, but there are also real structural issues in India-China relations that exacerbate discord. These stem largely from China's attempts to keep India at arm's length in the Indo-Pacific region. There are clear differences in the regional order in Asia that the two countries desire—India seeks a multipolar order, of which India is one of the main poles, while China seeks a single pole, of which India is not a pole at all.[21]

As India strengthens its security ties with the United States and takes a leading role in organizing the Global South, tensions with China persist. China's engagement with India's neighbors and growing military cooperation with Pakistan further strain India's geopolitical landscape. In this volatile landscape, Sino-Indian relations seek a delicate balance between pragmatic economic interests and escalating geopolitical tensions.[20]

History

[edit]

Antiquity

[edit]
Etched carnelian beads, Harappa Culture.[22] Such beads were imported from India to China in the early half of 1st millennium BCE.[23]
Xiangqi, or Chinese chess, which, like Western Chess is believed to be descended from the Indian chess game of chaturanga.[24] The earliest indications reveal the game may have been played as early as the third century BCE.

China and India have also had some contact before the transmission of Buddhism. References to a people called the Chinas, are found in ancient Indian literature. The Indian epic Mahabharata (c. 5th century BCE) contains references to "China", which may have been referring to the Qin state which later became the Qin dynasty. Chanakya (c. 350–283 BCE), the prime minister of the Maurya Empire, refers to Chinese silk as "cinamsuka" (Chinese silk dress) and "cinapatta" (Chinese silk bundle) in his Arthashastra.[25]

Buddhism was transmitted from India to China in the 1st century CE.[26] Trade relations via the Silk Road acted as economic contact between the two regions.[citation needed]

Middle Ages

[edit]
Ambassador from Central India (中天竺 Zhong Tianzhu) to the court of the Tang dynasty. Wanghuitu (王会图) circa 650 CE.

From the 1st century onwards, many Indian scholars and monks traveled to China, such as Batuo (fl. 464–495 CE)—first abbot of the Shaolin Monastery—and Bodhidharma—founder of Chan/Zen Buddhism—while many Chinese scholars and monks also traveled to India, such as Xuanzang (b. 604) and I Ching (635–713), both of whom were students at Nalanda University in Bihar.

Tang and Harsha dynasties

[edit]

During the 7th century, Tang dynasty China gained control over large portions of the Silk Road and Central Asia. In 649, the Chinese general Wang Xuance, along with thousands of recruited Tibetan and Nepalese troops, briefly invaded North India and won the battle.

During the 8th century, the astronomical table of sines by the Indian astronomer and mathematician, Aryabhatta (476–550), were translated into the Chinese astronomical and mathematical book of the Treatise on Astrology of the Kaiyuan Era (Kaiyuan Zhanjing), compiled in 718 CE during the Tang dynasty.[27] The Kaiyuan Zhanjing was compiled by Gautama Siddha, an astronomer and astrologer born in Chang'an, and whose family was originally from India. He was also notable for his translation of the Navagraha calendar into Chinese.

Yuan dynasty

[edit]

Tamil Hindu Indian merchants traded in Quanzhou during the Yuan dynasty.[28][29][30] Hindu statues were found in Quanzhou dating to this period.[31]

According to Badauni and Ferishta, the Delhi Sultanate under Muhammad bin Tughluq had ambitions to invade China. There existed a direct trade relationship between China and the Delhi Sultanate. Ibn Battuta mentions that the Yuan Emperor had sent an embassy to Muhammad for reconstruction of a sacked temple at Sambhal.

Ming dynasty

[edit]
Stele installed in Calicut by Zheng He (modern replica)

Between 1405 and 1433, Ming dynasty China sponsored a series of seven naval expeditions led by Admiral Zheng He. Zheng He visited numerous Indian kingdoms and ports, including the Malabar coast, Bengal, and Ceylon, the Persian Gulf, Arabia, and later expeditions ventured down as far as Malindi in what is now Kenya. Throughout his travels, Zheng He liberally dispensed Chinese gifts of silk, porcelain, and other goods. In return, he received rich and unusual presents, including African zebras and giraffes.[32] After the Ming treasure voyages, private Chinese traders continued operating in the eastern Indian Ocean. Chinese junks could frequently be seen in the ports of the Vijayanagara Empire, carrying silks and other products.[33]

Qing dynasty

[edit]

The Bhois of Orissa maintained minor maritime trade links with China. Many of the gosains entering Tibet from China passed through the territory of Birakisore Deva I of Khurda (1736–1793) who styled himself as Gajapati, the ruler of Utkala, when visiting the Jagannath temple at Puri.[34]

The reign of Tipu Sultan in Mysore saw Chinese technology used for sugar production,[35] and sandalwood was exported to China.[36] Tipu's and Mysore's tryst with silk began in the early 1780s when he received a silk cloth from an ambassador from the Qing dynasty-ruled China at his court. Tipu was said to be enchanted by the item to such an extent that he resolved to introduce its production in his kingdom. He sent a return journey to China, which returned after twelve years.[37]

After the Qing expansion into the Himalayas, there was increased contact with South Asia, which often manifested in the form of tributary relations. The Qing were obliged to defend their subservient state, Badakhshan, against the Afghans and Marathas, though no major clash with the Marathas ever took place. The Afghans gained the initiative and defeated the Marathas at Panipat in 1761. The battle's outcome was used by the Afghans to intimidate the Qing.[38]

A Chinese barber in Goa, early 1800s

Sino-Sikh War

[edit]

In the 18th to 19th centuries, the Sikh Empire expanded into neighbouring lands. It had annexed Ladakh into the state of Jammu in 1834. In 1841, they had some conflicts with Chinese forces; neither side wished to continue the conflict, as the Sikhs were embroiled in tensions with the British that would lead up to the First Anglo-Sikh War, while the Chinese were in the midst of the First Opium War. The Sikhs claimed victory. The two parties signed a treaty in September 1842, which stipulated no transgressions or interference in the other country's frontiers.[39]

British Raj

[edit]
Epitaph of Major Hsiao Chu Ching at Jairampur cemetery[40][41]

Indian soldiers, known as "sepoys", who were in British service participated in the First and Second Opium Wars against Qing China. Indian sepoys were also involved in the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion in 1900, in addition to serving as guards in the British colony of Hong Kong and foreign concessions such as the Shanghai International Settlement. The Chinese slur "Yindu A San " (印度阿三 - Indian number three) was used to describe Indian soldiers in British service, with some of the popular sentiment rejecting the possibility for Sino-Indian fraternity.[42]

Republic of China

[edit]

In 1924, on his major tour of several major Chinese cities, giving lectures about using their shared Asian values and traditional spirituality to help together promote world peace, Rabindranath Tagore was invited to Canton by Sun Yat-sen, an invitation which he declined. There was considerably mixed reception to Tagore from the Chinese students and intellectuals.[43]

China–India relations

China

India

Hu Shih, the Chinese ambassador to the United States from 1938 to 1942, commented, albeit critically, on India's Buddhism almost completely subsuming Chinese society upon its introduction.[44]

ASIA is one. The Himalayas divide, only to accentuate, two mighty civilizations, the Chinese with its communism of Confucius, and the Indian with its individualism of the Vedas. But not even the snowy barriers can interrupt for one moment that broad expanse of love for the Ultimate and Universal, which is the common thought-inheritance of every Asiatic race, enabling them to produce all the great religions of the world and distinguishing them from those maritime peoples of the Mediterranean and the Baltic, who love to dwell on the Particular, and to search out the means, not the end, of life.[45]

Chiang Kai-shek and his wife Song Meiling with Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru

While never having actually visited India in his lifetime, Sun Yat-sen, founder of the Republic of China, occasionally spoke and wrote of India as a fellow Asian nation that was likewise subject to harsh Western exploitation, and frequently called for a Pan-Asian united front against all unjust imperialism.[46][47] Similarly, believing that then-Republican China and British India were "sister nations from the dawn of history" who needed to transform their "ancient friendship into a new camaraderie of two freedom-loving nations", Jawaharlal Nehru visited China in 1939 as an honored guest of the government. Highly praising both Chiang Kai-shek and his wife Song Meiling, Nehru referred to Chiang as "not only a great Chinese, but a great Asiatic and world figure...one of the top most leaders of the world...a successful general and captain in war", and Song as "full of vitality and charm...a star hope for the Chinese people...a symbol of China's invincibility". Chiang recorded a favorable impression of Nehru in his diary, and the Chiangs also regularly wrote Nehru during his time in prison and even after their 1942 visit to India.[48][49]

The Chiangs with Mahatma Gandhi in Calcutta in 1942

Partially to enlist India's aid against both Japanese and Western imperialism in exchange for China's support for Indian independence, the Chiangs visited British India in 1942 and met with Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah. The Chiangs also sought to present their nation as a potential third option for the Indian people to ally themselves with, with public sympathies at the time sharply split between the British and the Japanese, who actively tried to sway India's population with pledges to liberate Asia if they would help their efforts against the British. While the public reception to the Chiangs was mostly positive, some reacted less favorably to the Chiangs' presence in India, with Jinnah believing that Chiang Kai-shek lacked proper understanding of Indian society and feeling he was biased in favor of Nehru and Gandhi while neglecting the demands of other religious communities.[50] For his part, Chiang apparently believed none of the major Indian leaders could help his government meaningfully. Nevertheless, the Chiangs continued to commit themselves to supporting the Indian independence movement from afar, mostly via diplomacy, with Song Meiling writing to Nehru encouragingly: "We shall leave nothing undone in assisting you to gain freedom and independence."[51]

In 1942, a division of the Kuomintang's armies entered India as the Chinese Army in India in their struggle against Japanese expansion in Southeast Asia.[52][53]

Post independence

[edit]

On 15 August 1947, India gained independence from the United Kingdom. The newly independent India established diplomatic relations with the ROC. On 1 October 1949, the Chinese People's Liberation Army defeated the Kuomintang (the ROC's ruling Nationalist Party) and took over Mainland China, establishing the PRC. Soon afterwards, India became a federal, democratic republic after its constitution came into effect on 26 January 1950.

1950s

[edit]

Their last telegrame to us is an act of gross discourtesy [...] It looks as though it is not a friend speaking in that language but a potential enemy [...] for the first time, after centuries, India’s defence has to concentrate itself on two fronts simultaneously. [...] In our calculations we shall now have to reckon with communist China in the north and in the north-east, a communist China which has definite ambitions and aims and which does not, in any way, seem friendly disposed towards us.

Excerpt from Home Minister Sardar Patel's letter to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, November 7, 1950[54]

India established diplomatic relations with the PRC on 1 April 1950, the first non-communist/socialist nation in Asia to do so.[55] Pakistan continued to recognize the ROC until 1951.[56]

The relationship between India and a newly communist China started out on an optimistic note. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India, and PRC premier Zhou Enlai articulated a vision of an internationalist foreign policy governed by the ethics of the Panchsheel (Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence).[57] However, there was notable skepticism on the Indian side from the very beginning about Chinese intentions. For example, Bhimrao Ambedkar was surprised that Nehru took Panchsheel seriously,[58] while Acharya Kriplani said that Panchsheel was "born in sin".[58] Nehru himself was disappointed when it became clear that the two countries had a conflict of interest in Tibet, which had traditionally served as a buffer zone.[citation needed] From the Chinese side, strategists were concerned about the possibility of India continuing to spread its dominance in Asia and the Indian Ocean in the manner of British India.[59]

China viewed Tibet as a part of its territory. The preceding government of the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek also claimed Tibet as Chinese territory. However, he was unable to re-assert control. Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party Mao Zedong saw Indian concern over Tibet as a manifestation of interference in the internal affairs of the PRC. The PRC reasserted control over Tibet and to end Tibetan Buddhism and feudalism, which it did by force of arms in 1950.[citation needed] To avoid antagonizing the PRC, Nehru informed Chinese leaders that India had no political ambitions or territorial ambitions and did not seek special privileges in Tibet, but that traditional trading rights must continue.[citation needed] With Indian support, Tibetan delegates signed an agreement in May 1951 recognizing PRC sovereignty[citation needed] but guaranteeing that the existing political and social system of Tibet would continue.

Chairman Mao Zedong of the Chinese Communist Party and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. In April 1954, India and the PRC signed an eight-year agreement on Tibet that became the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence (or Panchsheel). Jawaharlal Nehru of India, during the latter's state visit to China, October 1954.

In October 1954, China and India signed an agreement regarding Tibet, whereby India recognised Tibet as part of China, with China accepting the continuance of the previous trade arrangements. Observers noted the agreement heavily favored China.[60]

It is the popular perception that the catchphrase of India's diplomacy with China in the 1950s was Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai, which means, in Hindi, "Indians and Chinese are brothers".[61] Nehru sought to initiate a more direct dialogue between the peoples of China and India in culture and literature. Around then, the Indian artist (painter) Beohar Rammanohar Sinha, who had earlier decorated the pages of the original Constitution of India, was sent to China in 1957 on a Government of India fellowship to establish a direct cross-cultural and inter-civilization bridge. Noted Indian scholar Rahul Sankrityayan and diplomat Natwar Singh were also there, and Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan paid a visit to the PRC.

After signing the 1954 agreement, India published new maps showing defined borders, as it became apprehensive that China might make claims on Indian territory.[62] Two major territorial disputes existed between China and India, which remained dormant until 1959. In the northeast, Indian territory included the Assam Himalayan region up to the McMahon Line, which China did not recognise as a legal boundary. In the western sector, Indian territory inherited from the British Raj included the Aksai Chin plateau, which Chinese maps started showing as Chinese territory in the 1940s, if not earlier.[63] When India discovered that China built a road through the region, border clashes and Indian protests became more frequent. In January 1959, PRC premier Zhou Enlai wrote to Nehru, pointing out that no government in China had accepted as legal the McMahon Line, which the 1914 Simla Convention defined as the eastern section of the border between India and Tibet.

In March 1959, the Dalai Lama, spiritual and temporal head of the Tibet, sought sanctuary in Dharmsala, Himachal Pradesh, where he established the Tibetan government-in-exile. Thousands of Tibetan refugees settled in northwestern India. Relations between India and China deteriorated after India provided the Dalai Lama sanctuary.[64]

1960s

[edit]

Disputed territories of India

Border disputes resulted in a short border war between the People's Republic of China and India on 20 October 1962.[64] The border clash resulted in an overall defeat of India as the PRC pushed the Indian forces to within 48 km of the Assam plains in the northeast. It also occupied strategic points in the Aksai Chin and Demchok regions of Ladakh, before declaring a unilateral ceasefire on 21 November. It claimed that it withdrew to 20 km behind its contended line of control. India disagreed with the claim.

"I don't want to know what happened in the past. All I want to know is who are my commanders, where are the Chinese, how much ammunition have I got…"

Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw recalling 1962 when he was appointed to take charge of NEFA following the resignation of Kaul and Menon in the aftermath of the China India war.[65]

During the Sino-Indian border conflict, India's Communist Party was accused by the Indian government of being pro-PRC, and many of its political leaders were jailed. Subsequently, the Communist Party of India (CPI) split with the leftist section, forming the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in 1964.

Relations between the PRC and India deteriorated during the rest of the 1960s and the early 1970s, while China–Pakistan relations improved and Sino-Soviet relations worsened. The PRC backed Pakistan in its 1965 war with India, and issued "ultimatums" threatening military action at its own border. The threats only served to damage Pakistan's relations with the western powers.[66] In late 1967, there were two more conflicts between Indian and Chinese forces at their contested border, in Sikkim, known as the Nathu La and Cho La clashes. Both sides suffered heavy casualties, but India came out in a better position than the PRC.

Chinese demonstrations against Indian "reactionary factions" in Beijing in 1967.

The PRC continued an active propaganda campaign against India and supplied ideological, financial, and other assistance to dissident groups, especially to tribes in northeastern India. The PRC accused India of assisting the Khampa rebels in Tibet. Sri Lanka played the role of chief negotiator for the withdrawal of Chinese troops from the Indian territory. Both countries agreed to Colombo's proposals.[67][68]

1970s

[edit]

In August 1971, India signed a Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Co-operation with the Soviet Union. The PRC sided with Pakistan in its December 1971 war with India. Although China strongly condemned India, it did not carry out its veiled threat to intervene on Pakistan's behalf. By this time, the PRC had replaced the Republic of China in the UN, where its representatives denounced India as being a "tool of Soviet expansionism."

India and the PRC renewed efforts to improve relations after Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Congress party lost the 1977 elections to Morarji Desai's Janata Party. In 1978, the Indian Minister of External Affairs Atal Bihari Vajpayee made a landmark visit to Beijing, an impetus to both countries to officially re-establish diplomatic relations in 1979. The PRC modified its pro-Pakistan stand on Kashmir and appeared willing to remain silent on India's absorption of Sikkim and its special advisory relationship with Bhutan. The PRC's leaders agreed to discuss the boundary issue, India's priority, as the first step to a broadening of relations. The two countries hosted each other's news agencies, and Mount Kailash and Mansarowar Lake in Tibet, the home of the Hindu pantheon, were opened to annual pilgrimages.

1980s

[edit]

In 1981, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, Huang Hua, made a landmark visit to New Delhi.[69] PRC Premier Zhao Ziyang concurrently toured Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh.

In 1980, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi approved a plan to upgrade the deployment of forces around the Line of Actual Control. India also undertook infrastructural development in disputed areas.[70][71] In 1984, squads of Indian soldiers began actively patrolling the Sumdorong Chu Valley in Arunachal Pradesh. In the winter of 1986, the Chinese deployed their troops to the Sumdorong Chu before the Indian team could arrive and built a helipad at Wandung.[72] Surprised by the Chinese occupation, India's then Chief of Army Staff, General K.Sundarji, airlifted a brigade to the region.[71][73] Chinese troops could not move any further into the valley and were forced to move away from the valley.[74] By 1987, Beijing's reaction was similar to that in 1962 and this prompted many Western diplomats to predict war. However, Indian foreign minister N.D. Tiwari and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi travelled to Beijing to negotiate a mutual de-escalation.[71]

India and the PRC held eight rounds of border negotiations between December 1981 and November 1987. In 1985, the PRC insisted on mutual concessions without defining the exact terms of its "package proposal" or where the actual line of control lay. In 1986 and 1987, the negotiations achieved nothing, given the charges exchanged between the two countries of military encroachment in the Sumdorung Chu Valley. China's construction of a military post and helicopter pad in the area in 1986 and India's grant of statehood to Arunachal Pradesh (formerly the North-East Frontier Agency) in February 1987 caused both sides to deploy troops to the area. The PRC relayed warnings that it would "teach India a lesson" if it did not cease "nibbling" at Chinese territory. By the summer of 1987, however, both sides had backed away from conflict and denied military clashes had taken place.

A warming trend in relations was facilitated by Rajiv Gandhi's visit to China in December 1988. The two sides issued a joint communiqué that stressed the need to restore friendly relations on the basis of the Panchsheel. India and the People's Republic of China agreed to achieve a "fair and reasonable settlement while seeking a mutually acceptable solution" to the border dispute. The communiqué also expressed China's concern about agitation by Tibetan separatists in India and reiterated that anti-China political activities by expatriate Tibetans would not be tolerated. Rajiv Gandhi signed bilateral agreements on science and technology co-operation, established direct air links, and on cultural exchanges. The two sides also agreed to hold annual diplomatic consultations between foreign ministers, set up a joint committee on economic and scientific co-operation, and a joint working group on the boundary issue. The latter group was to be led by the Indian foreign secretary and the Chinese vice minister of foreign affairs.

1990s

[edit]

Top-level dialogue continued with the December 1991 visit of PRC premier Li Peng to India and the May 1992 visit to China of Indian president R. Venkataraman. Six rounds of talks of the Indian-Chinese Joint Working Group on the Border Issue were held between December 1988 and June 1993. Progress was also made in reducing tensions on the border via mutual troop reductions, regular meetings of local military commanders, and advance notification about military exercises. In July 1992, Sharad Pawar visited Beijing, the first Indian Minister of Defence to do so. Consulates reopened in Bombay (Mumbai) and Shanghai in December 1992.

In 1993, the sixth-round of the joint working group talks was held in New Delhi but resulted in only minor developments. Prime Minister Narasimha Rao and Premier Li Peng signed a border agreement dealing with cross-border trade, cooperation on environmental issues (e.g. Pollution, Animal extinction, Global warming, etc.), and radio and television broadcasting. A senior-level Chinese military delegation made a goodwill visit to India in December 1993 aimed at "fostering confidence-building measures between the defence forces of the two countries." The visit, however, came at a time when China was providing greater military support to Burma. The presence of Chinese radar technicians in Burma's Coco Islands, which border India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands, caused concern in India.

In January 1994, Beijing announced that it not only favored a negotiated solution on Kashmir, but also opposed any form of independence for the region. Talks were held in New Delhi in February aimed at confirming established "confidence-building measures", discussing clarification of the "line of actual control", reduction of armed forces along the line, and prior information about forthcoming military exercises. China's hope for settlement of the boundary issue was reiterated.

In 1995, talks by the India-China Expert Group led to an agreement to set up two additional points of contact along the 4,000 km border to facilitate meetings between military personnel. The two sides were reportedly "seriously engaged" in defining the McMahon Line and the line of actual control vis-à-vis military exercises and prevention of air intrusion. Talks were held in Beijing in July and in New Delhi in August to improve border security, combat cross-border crimes, and on additional troop withdrawals from the border. These talks further reduced tensions.[75]

There was little notice taken in Beijing of the April 1995 announcement of the opening of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Centre in New Delhi. The centre serves as the representative office of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and is the counterpart of the India-Taipei Association located in Taiwan. Both institutions share the goal of improving India-ROC relations, which have been strained since New Delhi's recognition of Beijing in 1950.

China-Indian relations hit a low point in 1998 following India's nuclear tests. Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes declared that "“in my perception of national security, China is enemy No 1....and any person who is concerned about India's security must agree with that fact",[76] hinting that India developed nuclear weapons in defence against China's nuclear arsenal. During the 1999 Kargil War, China voiced support for Pakistan, but also counseled Pakistan to withdraw its forces.

2000s

[edit]
Indian and Chinese officers at Nathu La. Nathu La was re-opened in 2006 following numerous bilateral trade agreements. The opening of the pass is expected to bolster the economy of the region and play a key role in the growing China-Indian trade.

In a major embarrassment for China, the 17th Karmapa, Urgyen Trinley Dorje, who was proclaimed by China, made a dramatic escape from Tibet to the Rumtek Monastery in Sikkim. Chinese officials were in a quandary on this issue as any protest to India on the issue would mean an explicit endorsement on India's governance of Sikkim, which the Chinese still hadn't recognised. In 2003, China officially recognised Indian sovereignty over Sikkim as the two countries moved towards resolving their border disputes.

In 2004, the two countries proposed opening up the Nathula and Jelepla Passes in Sikkim. 2004 was a milestone in China-Indian bilateral trade, surpassing the US$10  billion mark for the first time. In April 2005, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visited Bangalore to push for increased China-Indian cooperation in high-tech industries. Wen stated that the 21st century will be "the Asian century of the IT industry." Regarding the issue of India gaining a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, Wen Jiabao initially seemed to support the idea, but had returned to a neutral position.

In the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit in 2005, China was granted observer status. While other countries in the region are ready to consider China for permanent membership in the SAARC, India seemed reluctant.

In 2005, China and India signed the 'Strategic and Cooperative Partnership for Peace and Prosperity'.[77] However, there has been very little, if any, strategic convergence between the two countries.[78]

Issues surrounding energy have risen in significance. Both countries have growing energy demand to support economic growth. Both countries signed an agreement in 2006 to envisage ONGC Videsh Ltd (OVL) and the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) placing joint bids for promising projects.

In 2006, China and India re-opened the Nathula pass for trading; Nathula had been closed for 44 years prior to 2006. The re-opening of border trade helps to ease the economic isolation of the region.[79] In November 2006, China and India had a verbal spat over the claim of the north-east Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. India claimed that China was occupying 38,000 square kilometres of its territory in Kashmir, while China claimed the whole of Arunachal Pradesh as its own.[80]

In 2007, China denied the application for visa from an Indian Administrative Service officer in Arunachal Pradesh. According to China, since Arunachal Pradesh is a territory of China, he would not need a visa to visit his own country.[81] Later in December 2007, China reversed its policy by granting a visa to Marpe Sora, an Arunachal-born professor in computer science.[82][83] In January 2008, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited China to discuss trade, commerce, defence, military, and various other issues.

Hundreds of Tibetans protested against the Chinese government in New Delhi, 2008.

Until 2008, the British Government's position remained the same as it had been since the Simla Accord of 1913: that China held suzerainty over Tibet but not sovereignty. Britain revised this view on 29 October 2008, when it recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet through its website.[84][85][86] The Economist stated that although the British Foreign Office's website does not use the word sovereignty, officials at the Foreign Office said "it means that, as far as Britain is concerned, 'Tibet is part of China. Full stop.'"[87] This change in Britain's position affects India's claim to its North Eastern territories, which rely on the same Simla Accord that Britain's prior position on Tibet's sovereignty was based upon.[88]

In October 2009, the Asian Development Bank formally acknowledged Arunachal Pradesh as part of India and approved a loan to India for a development project there. Earlier, China had exercised pressure on the bank to cease the loan.[89] However, India succeeded in securing the loan with the help of the United States and Japan. China expressed displeasure at the ADB.[90][91]

2010s

[edit]

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao paid an official visit to India from 15 to 17 December 2010, at the invitation of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.[92] He was accompanied by 400 Chinese business leaders, who wished to sign business deals with Indian companies.[93] During this visit, Premier Wen Jiabao said "India and China are two very populous countries with ancient civilisations, friendship between the two countries has a time-honoured history, which can be dated back 2,000 years".[94]

In April 2011, during the BRICS summit in Sanya, Hainan, China,[95] the two countries agreed to restore defence cooperation and China had hinted that it may reverse its policy of administering stapled visas to residents of Jammu and Kashmir.[96][97] This practice was later stopped,[98] and as a result, defence ties were resumed between the two countries and joint military drills were expected.

In the March 2012 BRICS summit in New Delhi, CCP General Secretary and Chinese leader Hu Jintao told Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that "it is China's unswerving policy to develop China-Indian friendship, deepen strategic cooperation, and seek common development". Other topics were discussed, including border dispute problems and a unified BRICS central bank.[99] In April 2012, in response to India's test of an Agni-V missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Beijing, the PRC called for the two countries to "cherish the hard-earned momentum of co-operation".[100]

The BRICS leaders in the 2019 G20 Osaka summit.

The 2013 Depsang standoff lasted for three weeks, before being defused on 5 May 2013.[101] Days before a trip by Indian Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid to China, Khurshid said that both countries had a shared interest in not having the border issue exacerbate or "destroy" long-term progress in relations. The Chinese agreed to withdraw their troops in exchange for an Indian agreement to demolish several "live-in bunkers" 250 km to the south, in the disputed Chumar sector.[102] Chinese Premier Li Keqiang made his first foreign visit to India on 18 May 2013.[103][104] Indian President Pranab Mukherjee's visit to Arunachal Pradesh in late November 2013 and mentioning in his speech that the area was an "integral and important part of India" angered Beijing, and retaliatory statements followed.[105][106]

General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping was one of the top world leaders to visit New Delhi after Narendra Modi took over as Prime Minister of India in 2014.[107] India's insistence to raise the South China Sea in various multilateral forums subsequently did not help that beginning once again, the relationship facing suspicion from Indian administration and media alike.[108] In September 2014, the relationship took a sting as troops of the People's Liberation Army reportedly entered two kilometres inside the Line of Actual Control in the Chumar sector.[109] The next month, V. K. Singh said that China and India had come to a "convergence of views" on the threat of terrorism emanating from Pakistan.[110]

The Chinese leader and Indian Prime Minister witnessing the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Chinese and Indian foreign affairs ministers on opening a new route for Indian pilgrimage (Kailash Mansarovar Yatra) to the Tibet Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of China, in New Delhi in 2014

China and India have been working together to produce films together, such as Kung Fu Yoga starring Jackie Chan.[111] However, disruptions have risen again due to China building trade routes, the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor, with Pakistan on disputed Kashmir territory.[112] On 16 June 2017, Chinese troops with construction vehicles and road-building equipment began extending an existing road southward in Doklam, a territory which is claimed by both China as well as India's ally Bhutan.[113][114][115][116][117][118][119] On 18 June 2017, around 270 Indian troops, with weapons and two bulldozers, entered Doklam to stop the Chinese troops from constructing the road.[115][116][120][121] Among other charges, China accused India of illegal intrusion into its territory—what it called the mutually agreed China-India boundary, and violation of its territorial sovereignty and UN Charter.[122] India accused China of changing the status quo in violation of a 2012 understanding between the two governments regarding the tri-junction boundary points and causing "security concerns", which were widely understood as its concerns with the strategic Siliguri Corridor.[123][124] India media reported that on 28 June, Bhutan issued a demarche, demanding that China cease road-building in Doklam and leave the area as is.[125] The Minister of External Affairs of India at the time, Sushma Swaraj, asserted that if China unilaterally altered the status-quo of the tri-junction point between China-India and Bhutan, the nation would be posing a challenge to India's security.[126] China repeatedly stated that India's withdrawal was a prerequisite for meaningful dialogue.[127][128] On 21 July 2017, the Minister of External Affairs of India Sushma Swaraj said that for dialogue, both India and China must withdraw their troops.[129] On 2 August 2017, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China published a document claiming that Indian border forces had illegally crossed the border between China and India and detailed China's position on the matter.[130][131][132][133] The document said that China notified India regarding its plan to construct a road in advance, "in full reflection of China's goodwill".[134] The Indian Foreign Ministry replied by referring towards their earlier press release on this matter, as opposed to a point-by-point rebuttal.[135] On 28 August 2017, China and India reached a consensus to end the border stand-off.[136]

In May 2018, the two countries agreed to coordinate their development programmes in Afghanistan in the areas of health, education, and food security.[137] In 2019, India reiterated that it would not join China's Belt and Road Initiative, stating that it cannot accept a project that ignores concerns about its territorial integrity.[138] On 11 October 2019, Chinese leader Xi Jinping met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Mahabalipuram, Tamil Nadu, India, for a second informal meeting between India and China.[139] Modi and Xi Jinping met 18 times between 2014 and 2019.[140]

China offered public health and economic assistance to India in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, although India refused per the United States' request.[141]: 14 

2020s

[edit]
The disputed territory of Kashmir is administered by Pakistan (green and lime), India (blue and turquoise) and China (yellow).

On 10 May 2020, Chinese and Indian troops clashed in Nathu La, Sikkim, leaving 11 soldiers injured.[142][143][144] Following the skirmishes in Sikkim, tensions between the two countries grew in Ladakh, with a buildup of troops at multiple locations.[145] There were 20 Indian soldiers and an unknown number of PLA soldiers killed on the night of 15/16 June.[146] China reinforced troops near the Indian border with Tibet, Chinese state media reported.[147] Bilateral agreements between India and China prevent the use of guns along the line of actual control. However, these skirmishes saw the first shots, warning shots, being fired in decades.[148][149]

Following the deaths, Prime Minister Modi addressed the nation about the incident, saying that "the sacrifice made by our soldiers will not go in vain", while the Indian foreign minister told the Chinese foreign minister that Chinese actions in Galwan were "pre-meditated".[150] Following the Galwan Valley clash on 15 June 2020, there were renewed calls across India to boycott Chinese goods. However, numerous Indian government officials said that border tensions would have little impact on trade.[151][152]

On 29 June 2020, the Indian government banned 59 widely used Chinese mobile phone and desktop applications in response to rising tensions and escalating diplomatic dispute between the two nations.[153] On 19 August, The Times of India reported that the ministry of external affairs of India has been told that visas for Chinese businessmen, academics, industry experts, and advocacy groups will need prior security clearance, and the measures are similar to those that have long been employed with Pakistan.[154] On 19 September, India police arrested a freelance journalist for passing sensitive information to Chinese intelligence.[155]

On 27 October 2020, the United States and India signed the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement, enabling greater information-sharing and further defense cooperation, to counter China's growing military power in the region.[156]

The BRICS leaders in 2023, including Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi

After the 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of India responded, "Like many other countries, India, too, is concerned at recent developments. We urge the exercise of restraint, avoidance of unilateral actions to change status quo, de-escalation of tensions, and efforts to maintain peace and stability in the region."[157] India stopped reiterating the so-called "One China" policy as early as 2010.[158]

In September 2022, India and China pulled back soldiers from a friction point along the line of actual control. However, according to India's Ministry for External Affairs, the situation on the Line of Actual Control is "still not normal".[159] The Diplomat has reported that normalcy around the border between the countries seems unlikely and may not develop further.[160]

On 6 October 2022, India abstained on a draft resolution in the UNHRC on "holding a debate on the situation of human rights in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region of China" [161]

In June 2023, China placed a technical hold on a proposal moved by the U.S. and co-designated by India to sanction accused Pakistani terrorist Sajid Mir under the 12/67 Al Qaeda Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council. Mir had previously orchestrated bombings in Mumbai, killing some 175 people.[162] India heavily criticized the Chinese decision.

Narendra Modi meeting Xi Jinping at the 16th BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, 23 October 2024

On 25 August 2023 during the 15th BRICS summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, Modi and Xi spoke on the summit's sidelines where they agreed to deescalate tensions at the border. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China said both leaders "had a candid and in-depth exchange of views on current China-India relations” and Xi stated that "improving China-India relations serves the common interests of the two countries and peoples”, while the Ministry of External Affairs of India stated that during the meeting Modi "underlined that the maintenance of peace and tranquility in the border areas, and observing and respecting the LAC are essential for the normalization of the India-China relationship." The meeting was seen as a step toward mending the bilateral relations between the two countries.[163]

In October 2024, India announced that it had reached an agreement over patrolling arrangements along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the border area, which would lead to disengagement and resolution of the long-running conflict that began in 2020.[164]

In January 2025, China and India agreed to resume direct flights between the two countries after nearly 5 years.[165]

In April 2025, India launched its biggest-ever joint naval exercise with African nations as part of a push to boost its influence on the continent. The military exercises were perceived as a show of force to China, whose influence in Africa is significant.[166] India also announced the resumption of the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra in April 2025, after a period of five years, in a bid to normalise relations between the two nations.[167]

On 26 June 2025, Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh met his Chinese counterpart Dong Jun on the sidelines of the SCO defence ministers’ meeting in Qingdao, where he called for a permanent resolution to the border dispute through a “structured roadmap of permanent engagement and de-escalation.” Singh emphasised the need to “rejuvenate the established mechanism” for border demarcation and urged both sides to maintain “positive momentum” while avoiding new complications. He also stressed the importance of “bridging the trust deficit” created after the 2020 standoff by “taking action on ground.” Additionally, Singh briefed the Chinese side on 22 April Pahalgam attack and India's Operation Sindoor, launched to dismantle cross-border terrorist networks.[168][169][170] On 22 July 2025, India announced that it would resume issuing tourist visas for Chinese citizens, ending a five-year suspension imposed following the 2020 border skirmishes.[171]

Modi with Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin at the SCO summit in Tianjin, China, 1 September 2025

In a sign of growing diplomatic engagement and economic cooperation, China has reportedly agreed to address India's concerns over export curbs on key commodities such as fertilisers, rare earth magnets and minerals, and tunnel boring machines. The understanding followed high-level discussions between China's Director of the Office of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission Wang Yi and Indian External Affairs Minister S.Jaishankar during Wang's two-day visit to India in July 2025. According to Reports, Chinese authorities have begun responding to India's requests on these critical goods. The move is viewed as part of broader efforts to improve bilateral ties, reflecting the two nations’ long-shared history and mutual interest in regional stability.[172]

In September 2025, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi met General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping in Tianjin, calling for India and China to act as partners rather than rivals. They agreed to resume direct flights, tourist visas, and the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, and emphasized strategic autonomy while expanding cooperation on regional and global issues.[173]

Triangular relations

[edit]

The United States and Russia (previously Soviet Union) have been a consistent part of developments in Chinese and Indian relations.

As a major power, Japan has also been part of China–India relations, with initiatives such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. Pakistan and China share warm relations that drive Chinese infrastructure projects in the disputed territory of northern Kashmir. The Middle East, Latin America, and Africa are places where both India and China engage and compete. The Middle East is important to both countries in terms of their energy security. In Africa, China and India seem most engaged across a wide variety of issues, from development to peacekeeping. In South Asia and South-East Asia, a power balance struggle between China and India is seen in triangular relations.[174]

Nepal

[edit]

Nepal's geostrategic situation during periods of heightened tensions between China and India, such as during the 1962 war, resulted in varying shades of cautionary neutrality when making statements. Nepal's Permanent Representative stated, "we do not want to pass judgement on the merits of Sino-Indian border dispute. As a country friendly to both...". Tulsi Giri, then the Nepalese foreign minister, stated, "Nepal's relations with India will remain close [...] Yet, Nepal has a 600-mile boundary with China, China has now emerged as a great power. Friendly relations with our northern neighbour (China) should be the natural aim of the country's foreign policy."[175] During the time Tibet was independent, Nepal played the role as an important buffer state and was central to influence between the regions.[176]

The China-Nepal-India Economic Corridor (CNIEC) was proposed by China in April 2018.[177] It is an extension of the agreed upon China-Nepal Trans-Himalayan Multi-dimensional Connectivity Network into India. While China and Nepal have shown favourable reactions towards CNIEC, India is "indifferent".[178] This indifference is postulated to stem from CNIEC being a part of BRI, China's growing influence over Nepal, and an end to "India's monopoly over Nepal's transit points and Nepal's attempt to end its dependency on India".[178]

United States

[edit]

On 11 November 1950, Sri Aurobindo wrote in Mother India,[179]

"The gesture that can save is to take a firm line with China, denounce openly her nefarious intentions, stand without reservations by the USA [...] Militarily, China is almost ten times as strong as we are, but India as the spearhead of an American defence of democracy can easily halt Mao’s mechanised millions."

On 28 March 1963, Sudhir Ghosh recorded the President of the United States John F Kennedy's reaction on reading Sri Aurobindo's words, "One great Indian, Nehru, showed you the path of non-alignment between China and America, and another great Indian Aurobindo, showed you another way of survival. The choice is up to the people of India." Earlier in the meeting, Ghosh recorded Kennedy's reaction to a letter from Nehru, "He indignantly said that only a few months earlier when Mr Nehru was overwhelmed by the power of Communist China, he made desperate appeal to him for air protection, and non-alignment or no non-alignment, the President had to respond. He added sarcastically that Mr Nehru's conversion lasted only a few days".[179]

Unlike the left-wing diplomatic leanings of the Indian Congress Party, the BJP administration has strengthened its strategic partnership with the United States.[180] China faces combined challenges to its influence with its neighbors, and because it sees a growing threat from India and the United States' cooperation, it has exaggerated the discord between the two countries to divide and conquer its rivals.[21]

India participated in the restart of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue,[181] and has strengthened the military, diplomatic, and economic cooperation with the United States, Japan, and Australia.[181] More recently, after the deadly Chinese-initiated clash at Galwan Valley in June 2020, preceded by the 2017 Doklam standoff, the U.S.-based think tank, the Center for Foreign Relations, explained that there was a significant ramp-up in QUAD activity.[182][181][183] The group cites how, since 2020, the group has looked beyond regional cooperation and have focused on checking Chinese regional behavior, with the four navies performing their first joint exercise in over a decade in November 2020. This was specifically initiated by India in response to the border skirmishes.[183]

Africa

[edit]

In July 2025, during an address to the Parliament of Ghana, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a tacit critique of China's lending practices in Africa, contrasting them with India's approach to development cooperation. Without directly naming China, Modi emphasized that India's partnerships in Africa are demand-driven, aimed at building local capacities and self-sustaining ecosystems, rather than creating debt burdens. He highlighted India's support for Africa's Agenda 2063 and underscored the importance of growing together as equals.[184]

Indo-Pacific

[edit]

Pakistan, and more importantly, Myanmar, other than India itself, are potential land routes into the Indian Ocean. Pan Qi, Vice Minister for Communications, wrote in 1985 that China would need to find an outlet for its landlocked provinces. At the time, he suggested routes to the Indian Ocean through Myanmar.[185]

In the same vein of invigorating relationships with geopolitical allies, India has also strengthened their Look East Policy, transforming it into the Act East Policy under the Modi administration.[186][187] The rebranded Act East Policy has an increased focus on infrastructure projects, such as the Agartala-Akhaura Rail Project and the Asian Trilateral Highway.[188] Such geopolitical connectivity measures improved India's alliances with the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam to check Chinese dominance.[187][189] These soft power measures also enhance Indian border security.[186][189]

Western Indian Ocean

[edit]

The Western Indian Ocean has been characterised as an emerging "geopolitical theatre"[190] marked by interstate conflict between India, China and the US.[191][190] The regions holds key geostrategic importance to all three states.[192] Roughly 40 percent of world trade passes through the region as well as two thirds of global oil and gas supplies. It is a main gateway for global energy supply and two of the world's most important maritime chokepoints, the Bab-el Mandeb and Hormuz strait, are both located in the Western Indian Ocean region.[193] India and China are both dependent on access and free passage in the Western Indian Ocean as it is crucial to secure the increasing energy demand by the two growing economies/[193] The US is also dependent on the free passage of oil from the Middle East to the trans-Atlantic world through the region.[192][194]

India and China are both motivated by defensive interests in securing their supplies of energy and trade in the region. Beyond this both states are attempting to increase their relative power positions, economically as well as militarily and naval. This is commonly understood through the terms String of Pearls regarding China[193] and India's Act East Policy.[195] This could potentially align the two countries against the US, but this does not seem to be the case. India and China continue to strive for similar power positions and power rivalry between the two states continue.[194][196][197]

Beijing is refusing to see India as a regional power[198] and from an Indian perspective the Indian Ocean is largely seen as “India’s Ocean”. Any Chinese encroachment on India's sphere of interest is seen as a potential threat.[194][198] To counter increased Chinese naval and economic presence India has joined the Quad-alliance between the US, Japan and Australia and is carrying out naval missions with the US, China's core strategic rival. As such Sino-Indian relations in the Western Indian Ocean can be understood in terms of a triangular relationship of continuous counterbalancing between the three states.

Both India and China have interests in containing the influence of the other, yet none of them has the capacity to fully do this. India's aspirations to become a great regional power are constrained for several reasons. New Delhi's focus has traditionally been directed towards the continent and its naval development is lagging behind both China and the US.[198][195] Scholars also point towards the lack of a coherent maritime strategy despite increased political attention to the issue, for example through its Act East policy.[194][191] Political protectionist tendencies have allowed China to increase its relative economic influence overtaking India's position as main trading partner in various countries in the region.[195] In 2005 China surpassed India and became Bangladesh's main trading partner.[199] Despite these constraints China does not have the capacity to fully contain India. India continues to hold a special position in the region due to its dominating geographical position, history and interstate relations.[196] Furthermore, it is in US interests to counterbalance China's increased naval strength through cooperation with India.

As such geopolitical rivalry and strategic counterbalancing remains unsettled in the Western Indian Ocean and intensified rivalry between India and China seems to be the most likely trajectory some time to come.[196][191][198] This has substantial security implications as the increased militarisation decreases trust between the states and thus complicates cooperation over persisting security problems such as piracy.[192] A potential risk of militarisation at sea is that offence-defence tactics are often difficult to distinguish. Even if India and China followed solely defensive strategies, as it has been claimed, it might be perceived as offensive tactics within the maritime domain.[200] Furthermore, both states are deploying military and naval means beyond what is commonly seen as necessary to defend global shipping routes.[192][190] This includes nuclear-powered submarines send by China to fight piracy in the region.[192]

Military relations

[edit]

Border clashes

[edit]

Since the 1950s, during the term of India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, India and China have repeatedly encountered border disputes at the Line of Actual Control, delineating the border between the two nations.[201] The first Sino-India border war broke out in 1962 at the Aksai Chin region, escalating into a month-long military conflict.[201] Initiating the conflict, China took advantage of global concern about the ongoing Cuban missile crisis to time their regional invasion in hopes of building a military road in India's Ladakh region.[202]

During the Narendra Modi administration, bloody clashes erupted again on the Sino-Indian border.[182] The strategic alliance between China and Pakistan, and the vigorous arming of the Pakistani forces, make India face the threat of a two-front war.[203] Indian officials said the huge differences between the two sides on the border issue "eroded the entire basis" of their relationship.[204]

Maritime concerns

[edit]

According to Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), since 2020, Chinese research vessels with dual-use capabilities have expanded operations in the Indian Ocean Region, raising concerns. While framed as scientific missions, these surveys—conducted by ships linked to state and military institutions—collect oceanographic data critical for submarine operations and undersea warfare. Vessels such as Xiang Yang Hong 06 and Shiyan 06 have mapped the seafloor, deployed sensors, and operated near Indian waters, sometimes while concealing their presence by disabling identification systems.[205] Despite the evidence presented in a 2024 study conducted by the CSIS, Chinese state-media Global Times dismissed the concerns as a "China Threat Narrative".[206]

Chinese vessels have operated near sensitive maritime zones and within the EEZs of regional countries, prompting India to increase naval surveillance and diplomatic engagement. In early 2024, Sri Lanka, imposed a temporary moratorium on Chinese research vessels docking at its ports, reflecting growing regional resistance to Beijing's opaque maritime activities.[205][207]

In July 2025, a Chinese research vessel was caught operating covertly in the Bay of Bengal near Indian waters, according to a French maritime intelligence firm. The ship had switched off its Automatic Identification System (AIS) but was tracked via radio frequency signals. It was likely conducting strategic activities such as seafloor mapping, acoustic analysis, and identifying submarine transit routes—operations linked to surveillance and anti-submarine warfare.[208][209]

Military exercises

[edit]
INS Kora (P61) escorting PLA Navy Ship Weifang off Visakhapatnam, India, in May 2014, during their visit to the Indian Navy's Eastern Naval Command.

China and India conduct a joint military exercise called 'Exercise Hand–in–Hand'.[210] The exercise began in 2007, with the second edition taking place in 2008.[211] The third, fifth, and seventh editions of Hand-in-Hand were conducted in China in 2013, 2015, and 2018, respectively, while the fourth edition and sixth editions were held in India in 2014 and 2016.[212] The eighth edition was held in India in 2019.[213] While bilateral military exercises between India and China have ceased over the past few years, India is still accepting invitations from Russia for multilateral armed forces exercises that also happen to host Chinese soldiers.[214]

Water sharing and hydro–politics

[edit]

A total of seven rivers that start in Tibet flow through India — Indus, Satlej, Karnali (Ghaghara), Subansiri, Brahmaputra, and Lohit (and its tributary Dulai).[215]

Brahma Chellaney has written that "India's formal recognition of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet constitutes the single biggest security blunder with lasting consequences for Indian territorial and river-water interests".[216]

India has concern with China's water–diversion, dam–building, and inter–river plans. More so, in a conflict, India fears that China can use the rivers as leverage. China has already constructed ten dams on the Bhramaputra and its tributaries, such as the Zangmu Dam, and there has been talk of China building a mega–dam at the "great bend" called the Motuo Dam. India's concerns also stem from the fact that China does not cooperate with regard to timely sharing of information related to projects which would impact water sharing, nor does China allow Indian experts to visit dam sites. There are a number of memoranda of understanding on hydrological data sharing between the two countries with regard to the Brahmaputra, including emergency management.[217]

An alternate view is also presented in relation to "misinformation spread by some (Indian) newspapers" and the waters of Brahmaputra — "80 percent of the waters of the Brahmaputra emanate from the north side of the Himalayas in China and that that country cannot be the sole arbiter of its international waters. This is not right. Eighty percent of the waters of the mighty Brahmaputra are picked up after it enters India" and that Chinese activities have helped India by reducing annual flood intensity in the north-east.[215]

India formally “registered its concern with China” in December 2024 over construction of Medog Dam, also known as the Motuo Hydropower Station, the country's external affairs minister told lawmakers in March 2025, adding that the project figured prominently in talks between the nations in January 2025.[218]

In 2025, while India expressed significant concerns over China's construction of the Motuo Hydropower Station on the Yarlung Tsangpo River in Tibet, citing potential threats to water security, environmental stability, and regional livelihoods, Indian officials and experts warned that the project could enable China to control or divert river flows into India, affecting the Siang and Brahmaputra rivers, which are vital for millions in the northeastern states. Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu described the dam as an "existential threat" to indigenous communities such as the Adi tribe, highlighting risks of water scarcity or catastrophic flooding due to sudden water releases. The Indian government formally urged China to ensure transparency, consult downstream countries, and safeguard the interests of riparian states, framing the issue as a matter of regional cooperation and stability.[219] Some experts, observers, and individuals from journalistic fraternity from India have also expressed concerns. Dr. Jogendranath Sharma, an eminent geologist and retired professor from Dibrugarh University, cautioned that China's proposed 60,000 MW Medog Hydropower Project, located in a seismically active and ecologically sensitive region, could trigger severe natural disasters in downstream Assam. He cited potential risks including erosion from “hungry water,” disruption of groundwater systems, altered monsoon patterns, and threats to biodiversity and livelihoods, and advocated for a joint Indo-China environmental impact assessment.[220]

On 19 July 2025, the Yarlung Zangbo hydropower project of China officially commenced construction.[221] India and Bangladesh have raised concerns about the impact in their countries when the dam becomes operational after 2030.[222]

In August 2025, India reiterated its concerns over China's Medog Hydropower Station, citing risks to regional water security, ecology, and downstream livelihoods. The Ministry of External Affairs stated that the project was being closely monitored and that India had repeatedly urged Beijing to ensure transparency and consult downstream countries. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar raised the issue during his July 2025 visit to China for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, also calling for the resumption of suspended hydrological data sharing.[223][224]

Indian observers have raised concerns about the legality of China's unilateral actions in asserting upstream control over transboundary rivers. Aravind Yelery, associate professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, described China's approach as neglecting its responsibility to preserve river flows, suggesting it is driven by geopolitical ambitions and poses environmental and diplomatic risks. He noted similar patterns in China's management of the Mekong River, where multiple dams have been built without formal riparian agreements. Atul Kumar, a fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, highlighted that China has not entered into water-sharing treaties with its neighbors and often withholds hydrological data during periods of strained relations.[225]

Economic relations

[edit]

India-China economic relations have been institutionalized through the Joint Economic Group and Business Council, as well as more focused efforts such as the "Agreement on the Avoidance of Double Taxation".[226]

China and India have developed their own complementary skills following a period in which they had cut themselves off from each other. By 2007, while China excelled at cost-effective manufacturing, India was skilled in cost effective designing and development. In 2007, Tarun Khanna wrote in Harvard Business Review that "The simplest, and most powerful, way of combining China and India is to focus on hardware in China and on software in India."[227] In the 2009 book "Getting China and India Right", the authors suggest a China plus India strategy so as to strategically benefit from both India's and China's scale, complementary strengths, and reducing the risk of being unilaterally present.[228]

There are cases when Indian companies have gone to China and done well, such as Mahindra and Mahindra, while Chinese companies such as Huawei have done well in India. Huawei set up its Indian unit in 1999 and by 2007, had 1500 engineers. Huawei's Bangalore unit, already one of Huawei's most important research and development centres, was Capability Maturity Model Level 5 certified in 2003.[227]

In the oil sector, there is competition and engagement — China's Sinopec and China National Petroleum Corporation and India's Oil and Natural Gas Corporation fight over oil assets in some regions, while winning bids as joint ventures in others such as Syria, Colombia, Angola, and Venezuela.[227]

Since the deterioration of relations between the two countries in the 2010s, India has banned a large number of Chinese technology companies and software, including Huawei, TikTok, WeChat, etc., from entering the Indian market.[229] In order to reduce Western countries' previous dependence on Chinese products, India plays an integral role in boosting supply chain resilience through friendshoring.[230]

On 18 January 2024, at the World Economic Forum 2024 in Davos, Switzerland, top Indian industrial policy bureaucrat Rajesh Kumar Singh told Reuters that due to easing of border tensions between India and China in 2023, India could reduce its heightened scrutiny of Chinese investments in India although timeframe for it was not given.[231][232]

In July 2025, China reportedly recalled over 300 engineers from Foxconn's iPhone plant in India. India responded by partnering with Taiwan, the US, South Korea, and Japan to secure engineers and critical manufacturing equipment.[233]

Bilateral trade

[edit]

China is India's second largest trading partner.[234][235][236] In June 2012, China asserted that "Sino-Indian ties" could be the most "important bilateral partnership of the century", seemingly substantiated by current Prime Minister Narendra Modi's historic visit to China in May 2015.[237][238] At that pivotal visit, Wen Jiabao, the Premier of China, and Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India set a goal to increase Indo-Chinese bilateral trade to US$100 billion by 2015.[239] At the India-China Business Forum in Shanghai, Modi claimed that China and India would pool together their manufacturing capabilities, citing initiative examples, such as building “50 million houses by 2022”, "develop[ing] smart cities and mega industrial corridors”, and refining FDI policy and modernizing railway systems together.[238]

Bilateral trade between India and China. India's imports from China — 2010 to 2019.

Following that conference, bilateral trade between China and India touched US$89.6 billion in 2017–18, with the trade deficit widening to US$62.9 billion in China's favor.[240][241] In 2017, the volume of bilateral trade between India & China stood at US$84.5 billion.[242] This figure excludes bilateral trade between India and Hong Kong, which stands at another US$34 billion.[243][244] Chinese imports from India amounted to $16.4 billion, or 0.8% of its overall imports, and 4.2% of India's overall exports in 2014. Major commodities exported from India to China were: cotton; gems, precious metals, coins; copper; ores, slag, ash; organic chemicals; salt, sulphur, stone, cement; machines, engines, and pumps. Chinese exports to India amounted to $58.4 billion or 2.3% of its overall exports, which made up approximately 12.6% of India's overall imports in 2014.[245][244] Major commodities exported from China to India were: electronic equipment; machines, engines, pumps; organic chemicals; fertilizers; iron and steel; plastics; iron or steel products; gems, precious metals, coins; ships, boats; medical, and technical equipment.[245][244]

In 2018, a Standing Committee on Commerce chaired by Naresh Gujral submitted a report on the 'Impact of Chinese Goods on Indian Industry.'[246] The report pointed out insufficient implementation of existing anti-dumping laws, reliance on Chinese raw materials in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, reliance on Chinese imports in India's National Solar Mission, Goods and Services Tax on certain products resulting in increased imports from China, and Indian smart city administrations preferring Chinese bicycles over Indian ones.[246] India imported $65.3 billion worth of goods from China in the fiscal year ended March 2020, and exported $16.6 billion, according to the commerce ministry.[247]

In 2020, in a departure from the previous pledges of collaboration, Modi instituted bans on Chinese products, including both intangible apps (TikTok) and tangible goods (toys and furniture).[248][249][250] Furthermore, the Modi administration created the Phased Manufacturing Program to encourage India-based cellphone assembly and manufacturing.[248] Under guidance from this legislation and the accompanying task force to reduce import dependence, India raised import duties on electronic items produced in China, as well as a laundry list of ancillary goods.[248][250]

According to a 2021 survey published in ThePrint, 43% of Indians did not buy ‘Made in China’ products since the Galwan clash the previous year.[251] Modi also took notice of Swadeshi Jagran Manch's (SJM) campaigns, launching or reviving 220 out of 370 anti-dumping suits against Chinese items ranging from steels, pharmaceuticals, and chemicals.[122][250]

Due to the international sanctions against Russia following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Indian oil refiners started using Chinese yuan for payments of Russian oil imports as an alternative to the US dollar.[252] The Indian government also does not welcome the use of yuan for payments by its companies.[253] Indian automakers have faced shortages due to export restrictions of China's rare earth metals.[254]

Due to rising trade tensions with the US such as the imposition of 50% tariffs over India's trade with Russia on the majority of Indian goods by President Donald Trump, which took effect in August 2025, India had a diplomatic shift strengthening its ties with China.[255][256] By September 2025, visa issuances have resumed, and India had begun considering Chinese firms to hold 20% to 25% stakes in its manufacturing, renewable energy, and auto parts sectors.[256]

Cultural relations

[edit]

A famous quote from Hu Shih regarding ancient Sino-Indian ties, albeit in a critical context, was "India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border".[257]

Cuisine

[edit]

Public opinion

[edit]

According to a 2014 BBC World Service Poll, 23% of Indians viewed China positively, with 47% expressing a negative view, whereas 27% of Chinese people viewed India positively, with 35% expressing a negative view.[258] A 2014 survey conducted by Pew Research Center had 39% of Indian respondents holding an unfavourable view of China compared to 31% holding a favourable view;[259] 72% of the respondents were concerned that territorial disputes between China and neighbouring countries could lead to a military conflict.[260]

An Observer Research Foundation survey released in August 2021 of Indian youth found that 77% of respondents distrusted China, which was higher than any other country, including Pakistan. 86% also supported the government's decision to ban Chinese mobile apps.[261] An August 2023 survey by Pew Research Center found that 67% of Indian respondents had an unfavorable view of China.[262]

A 2008 poll from the Pew Research Center found that in China, views about India were mixed – 25% said India was a partner, while 24% said it was an enemy.[263] In 2011, Vikas Bajaj of The New York Times found Chinese media rarely reported about India and general populace lacks awareness and expertise on Indian matters.[264] A 2023 Tsinghua University survey found that 8% of Chinese respondents had a favorable view of India, 50.6% had an unfavorable view, and 41.5% had a neutral view.[265][266]

See also

[edit]
Bilateral and multilateral relations
Border disputes

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
China–India relations denote the bilateral ties between the and the , encompassing diplomatic, economic, strategic, and cultural dimensions between two nuclear-armed powers sharing a contested 3,488-kilometer Himalayan frontier. Formal diplomatic relations were established on April 1, 1950, following 's independence and the founding of the , initially marked by mutual non-interference principles under the 1954 Panchsheel agreement. Ancient interactions trace to the era, where trade routes enabled the transmission of from to , alongside exchanges of goods like silk, spices, and technologies, fostering enduring cultural links. Relations deteriorated in the mid-20th century amid unresolved demarcations, culminating in the 1962 , a month-long conflict from October 20 to November 21 where Chinese forces overran Indian positions in and what is now , resulting in India's military defeat and a unilateral Chinese with withdrawal from eastern gains but retention of western territories. The enduring dispute centers on China's control of —claimed by India as part of —and India's administration of , which China designates as southern , periodically escalating into skirmishes like the 2020 Galwan Valley clash that killed over 20 Indian and an undisclosed number of Chinese troops. Economically, interdependence persists despite geopolitical frictions, with reaching $127.71 billion in India's FY25, though skewed by a $99.2 billion Indian deficit driven by Chinese imports of , machinery, and chemicals outpacing Indian exports of raw materials and pharmaceuticals; remains India's top trading partner. Strategic competition defines contemporary dynamics, evidenced by India's alignment with the Quad alongside the , , and to counterbalance Chinese influence in the , contrasted by joint participation in and SCO forums. Recent de-escalation efforts include the October 2024 border patrolling agreement and the August 31, 2025, summit between Prime Minister and President , where both affirmed partnership over rivalry and committed to resolving differences through dialogue.

Geopolitical and Strategic Context

Fundamental Rivalries and Power Dynamics

The rivalry between and stems from their status as contiguous rising powers vying for dominance in , where relations are often metaphorically described as a "dragon-elephant tango," portraying China as the assertive "dragon" and India as the steady "elephant," exacerbated by unresolved territorial disputes and competing visions for regional order. 's annexation of in 1950 eliminated a historical buffer, enabling to assert claims over areas like , which it began integrating via a strategic road constructed in 1956–1957, prompting Indian protests and contributing to the 1962 . This conflict, where Chinese forces advanced deep into disputed territories before unilaterally withdrawing, highlighted 's willingness to employ military force to enforce its border interpretations, rooted in rejection of colonial-era delineations such as the . 's support for Tibetan exiles and the Dalai Lama's presence in further strain relations, as views it as interference in its core interests. Military power dynamics underscore China's advantages, with its 2024 defense expenditure reaching $314 billion compared to India's $86.1 billion, enabling rapid modernization of the , including nuclear and naval capabilities benchmarked against the . India, ranking fourth globally in military spending for 2025 projections, has responded with arms build-ups and limited alliances, such as the Quad with the , , and , to counterbalance . Beijing's "" strategy—establishing ports in , , and elsewhere—fuels Indian concerns over encirclement, particularly in the , where China's naval presence has surged amid India's traditional continental focus. These asymmetries drive India's hedging strategy, blending economic engagement with to avoid direct while resisting deference to Chinese hierarchy. Economically, China's GDP dwarfs India's, fostering dependency through a $100 billion-plus trade imbalance favoring , yet India curbs investments from Chinese firms in sensitive sectors post-2020 Galwan clashes to mitigate security risks. China's alliance with , including the China-Pakistan traversing disputed , amplifies triangular tensions, as arms against while vetoing UN sanctions on Pakistan-based terrorists. Ideologically, 's democratic pluralism clashes with China's authoritarian model, influencing global competition for influence in the Global South via forums like , where mutual suspicions limit cooperation. Post-2020 skirmishes, which killed 20 Indian and an undisclosed number of Chinese troops, have entrenched distrust, with both sides deploying over 50,000 troops along the , signaling a shift toward sustained hard balancing over accommodation.

Border Dispute Mechanics and Claims

The Sino-Indian border dispute centers on an undemarcated frontier spanning approximately 3,488 kilometers according to Indian assessments, though Chinese estimates place it at around 2,000 kilometers, reflecting perceptual differences in alignment. The dispute divides into the western sector, encompassing , and the eastern sector, covering , with neither side recognizing the other's sovereignty claims in these regions. The (LAC), emerging after the 1962 war, delineates areas of effective military control but lacks formal agreement, leading to overlapping patrols and periodic standoffs. In the western sector, India claims —roughly 37,244 square kilometers administered by China—as part of , basing its position on the Johnson Line proposed in 1865 by British surveyor W.H. Johnson, which extended the boundary of Jammu and Kashmir northward to include the region. China asserts historical incorporation of Aksai Chin into and , citing traditional caravan routes and Qing-era administrative practices, and constructed a strategic highway through the area in the late 1950s without initial Indian detection or response due to limited presence. These claims stem from colonial-era ambiguities, as British boundaries were surveyed unilaterally without Qing China's involvement or enforcement on the ground. The eastern sector dispute involves , approximately 90,000 square kilometers administered by , which China designates as "Zangnan" or southern , rejecting the established at the 1914 between British and as an invalid imposition lacking Chinese . upholds the —spanning from to —as its legal boundary, inherited from British and affirmed in post-independence maps, arguing 's at the time lent it legitimacy despite China's non-participation. China's position prioritizes historical Tibetan under imperial rule, viewing the convention as a product of British-Tibetan collusion bypassing central authority. Mechanically, the LAC operates through bilateral agreements like the 1993 pact on maintaining peace and the 1996 accord on , which prohibit firing across the line and mandate flag meetings to resolve incursions. Both armies conduct patrols to assert claims, resulting in transgressions—India documented 1,025 such incidents by forces from 2016 to 2018—often in gray zones where maps diverge by several kilometers. Infrastructure development exacerbates tensions: has built villages, roads, and airstrips near the LAC since the 2010s, while has accelerated highway and bridge construction, such as the Darbuk-Shyok-Daulat Beg Oldi road, prompting mutual accusations of altering the status quo. Disengagement protocols, negotiated via Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination meetings, aim to create buffer zones and stagger patrols, though full implementation remains uneven due to persistent perceptual gaps.

Indo-Pacific and Maritime Competition

China's expanding naval footprint in the Indian Ocean, driven by its dependence on sea lines of communication for over 80% of its oil imports transiting the Malacca Strait, has intensified maritime competition with India, which views the region as its primary strategic theater. Beijing's "String of Pearls" strategy involves developing commercial ports with potential dual-use military capabilities, such as Gwadar in Pakistan and Hambantota in Sri Lanka, to secure access amid vulnerabilities to Indian interdiction. These investments, part of the Belt and Road Initiative, have raised concerns in New Delhi about encirclement, prompting India to counter with its own port projects like Chabahar in Iran and enhanced ties with littoral states including Mauritius and Seychelles. India has responded by bolstering its naval capabilities and forward presence, commissioning new warships and while conducting freedom-of-navigation operations extending to the as of 2024. The , with approximately 150 warships and growing indigenous production under programs like Project 75I, maintains dominance in the to monitor chokepoints, while increasing patrols in response to 's deployments. , having dispatched to the since 2013—initially a Shang-class nuclear —has escalated subsurface activities, with reports of up to six operating periodically by 2024, supported by the base established in 2017. Multilaterally, India leverages the (Quad)—comprising India, the , , and —to promote a , focusing on , joint exercises like Malabar, and infrastructure resilience against coercion. The Quad's 2024 summits emphasized countering unlawful maritime claims and enhancing undersea surveillance, aligning with India's SAGAR doctrine for cooperative security, though avoids explicit containment rhetoric to preserve . China views these groupings as , responding with increased bilateral exercises in the region—14 in 2023, nine maritime-focused—and port access deals, heightening tensions without direct naval confrontations as of 2025. In the Western Indian Ocean, competition manifests in rival influence over island nations; secured a 99-year lease on in 2017 after debt distress, while has provided patrol vessels and radar systems to and , regaining ground post-2024 political shifts. Both nations conduct anti-piracy patrols— since 2008 with over 40 task forces—and disaster relief, but underlying rivalry persists over logistics sustainment, with 's Andaman bases offering proximity advantages over 's distant operations. As of early 2025, de-escalation on land borders has not diminished maritime frictions, with experts warning of potential flashpoints if 's carrier groups routinely project power westward.

Historical Foundations

Ancient and Medieval Interactions

Although the Qin dynasty (221–206 BCE) and Maurya Empire (c. 322–185 BCE) overlapped temporally, no reliable historical evidence indicates direct contact, interaction, or mutual awareness between them; the vast distance across Central Asia and absence of direct trade or diplomatic channels prevented such engagement, with primary sources like Sima Qian's Shiji and Ashoka's rock edicts containing no mentions of the other. Ancient interactions between and primarily occurred through overland routes and southern land paths during the Han dynasty and later, enabling trade in commodities such as Chinese silk exchanged for Indian spices, textiles, and precious stones, though much of this relied on Central Asian and Southeast Asian intermediaries prior to the CE. The introduction of from to during the (206 BCE–220 CE), facilitated by networks around the 1st century CE, represented the era's most significant cultural transmission, with itinerant monks conveying scriptures and doctrines along these pathways. Chinese Buddhist pilgrims undertook arduous journeys to India to procure authentic texts and study under Indian masters, fostering direct knowledge exchange. (c. 337–422 CE) departed in 399 CE, traversed Central Asian kingdoms and the , visited over 30 sites across northern and including and , and returned via by sea in 412 CE, compiling A Record of Buddhist Kingdoms that detailed Indian monastic life and geography. (602–664 CE), defying Tang imperial travel restrictions, set out in 629 CE, endured 17 years of travel including mountain crossings and bandit encounters, resided at for five years studying under Silabhadra, and repatriated 657 texts in 645 CE, which spurred translations and doctrinal advancements in Chinese Mahayana . Yijing (635–713 CE) followed a maritime route from 671 to 695 CE, emphasizing studies in eastern India and documenting over 50 texts. Medieval exchanges, spanning the Tang (618–907 CE), (960–1279 CE), and Yuan (1271–1368 CE) dynasties, sustained these ties amid evolving maritime capabilities, with Chinese traders increasingly accessing ports via Southeast Asian hubs, exporting ceramics and while importing Indian aromatics, pearls, and medicinal herbs. Pilgrimages continued into the Tang era, with dozens of Chinese scholars visiting Indian centers like Nalanda, introducing Indian astronomical calculations, phonetic systems, and literary forms that influenced Chinese scholarship, such as the adoption of Brahmi-derived scripts in Buddhist manuscripts. Buddhist networks persisted into the 11th century, even as Islam's rise in northern India curtailed overland access, while indirect Mongol-mediated contacts during the Yuan facilitated limited envoy exchanges and shared Eurasian trade circuits. These interactions embedded Indian philosophical concepts into Chinese cosmology and ethics, though direct state-level remained absent, overshadowed by intermediary polities.

Imperial and Colonial Encounters (16th–20th Centuries)

During the 19th century, British colonial rule in India intertwined the economies of India and China through the opium trade, with opium cultivated in Bengal and exported to China by the East India Company, reaching a peak of over 5,000 tons annually by the 1830s. This trade imbalance, causing significant silver drainage from China, prompted Qing commissioner Lin Zexu to confiscate and destroy 20,000 chests of opium in Canton in 1839, igniting the First Opium War (1839–1842). British-Indian forces, including sepoy regiments from Bengal, played a key role in the conflict, capturing ports and contributing to the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, which opened Chinese treaty ports to Western trade. The Second Opium War (1856–1860) further involved British-Indian troops alongside British forces, leading to the Treaty of , which legalized the trade and expanded foreign access in China, solidifying economic dependencies mediated by British imperialism. Indian merchants, particularly and , established trading firms in newly opened Chinese ports like and , dealing in , cotton, and spices, with communities numbering in the hundreds by the late . These networks, often serving as compradors for British firms, facilitated intra-Asian commerce but reinforced colonial hierarchies. Chinese migration to commenced in the late , with Hakka laborers arriving in Calcutta for port work, evolving into settled communities of tanners, dentists, and shoemakers in Kolkata's , peaking at around 7,000 residents by before wartime internment and post-independence repatriations reduced numbers. Limited Indian labor migration to China occurred, but Indian troops and officials interacted with Chinese counterparts during British expeditions, such as the 1900 , where Indian sepoys guarded legations in . In the early 20th century, under the Republic of China and British , strategic encounters emerged during . Chinese Nationalist forces trained and operated in northeastern as part of the against , with units like the utilizing Indian bases and supply lines from 1942 onward. On February 10, 1942, Generalissimo visited , conferring with and in Calcutta to urge unified resistance to Japanese invasion, emphasizing military coordination and 's role in Allied logistics. This visit, amid famine and tensions, highlighted nascent bilateral solidarity overshadowed by colonial constraints.

Diplomatic Recognition and Early Modern Ties (1949–1960)

India recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) on December 30, 1949, becoming the first non-communist country to do so, shortly after the Chinese Communist Party's victory in the mainland civil war. Formal diplomatic relations were established on April 1, 1950, with India also withdrawing recognition of the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan. This move aligned with Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's vision of fostering Asian solidarity against colonialism, despite domestic opposition and the recent partition of India. Early interactions emphasized mutual support for and non-alignment. In 1950, following China's annexation of , India relinquished extraterritorial rights in the region via an agreement that affirmed Tibetan under Chinese suzerainty, though this later fueled disputes over border definitions. Chinese Premier visited India in June 1954, where he and Nehru issued a joint statement incorporating the Panchsheel: mutual respect for , non-aggression, non-interference in internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and . This framework underpinned the Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between Region and India, signed April 29, 1954, regulating border trade routes like and facilitating pilgrimage and commerce. Nehru reciprocated with a to from October 19 to 30, 1954, meeting and reinforcing the "Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai" (India- brotherhood) slogan amid public enthusiasm. expanded modestly, with India exporting and minerals while importing Chinese and antiques, though volumes remained low at around 20 million rupees annually by mid-decade. Cultural exchanges, including delegations and broadcasts, promoted goodwill, yet underlying tensions simmered as Chinese maps post-1954 depicted the and as disputed, diverging from India's inherited British boundaries. By the late 1950s, frictions emerged publicly. China's 1956-1957 construction of a strategic highway through , revealed by Indian patrols in 1958, prompted protests from , as the route traversed territory claimed under the Johnson Line. Zhou Enlai's April 1960 visit to sought to address these via talks in and Calcutta, proposing a package deal swapping for recognition of Indian claims in the east, but Nehru insisted on prior acceptance of the status quo line, stalling progress. These discussions highlighted Nehru's forward policy of asserting administrative control in disputed areas, contrasting China's prioritization of strategic consolidation in , setting the stage for escalation beyond 1960.

Evolution of Bilateral Ties Post-1962

The 1962 War and Its Aftermath

The began on October 20, 1962, with Chinese forces launching simultaneous offensives in the western region and the eastern (NEFA), now , over longstanding border disputes. China's (PLA), numbering around 80,000 troops, overwhelmed Indian defenses that were ill-prepared due to logistical shortcomings and underestimation of the threat, advancing rapidly to capture key positions including in the east. A second phase of attacks on November 19-20 penetrated deeper into Indian territory before China unilaterally declared a on November 21, 1962, and began withdrawing troops. Casualties were asymmetric, with India suffering approximately 1,383 killed, 1,696 wounded, and 3,968 captured, while Chinese losses were reported at 722 killed and 1,697 wounded, reflecting China's superior preparation and numbers. The war's outcome solidified Chinese control over , a strategically vital area linking and , while in the east, PLA forces withdrew to positions roughly 20 kilometers behind the , establishing the de facto (LAC) that has defined the border since. In the immediate aftermath, India faced profound military and political humiliation, prompting Jawaharlal Nehru's government to initiate defense reforms, including army expansion from 400,000 to over 800,000 troops by 1964 and a shift in focus from to as the primary threat. Diplomatic ties severed abruptly; India recalled its ambassador from , expelled Chinese diplomats and citizens, and banned trade, freezing bilateral relations for over a decade. , leveraging the victory to secure its southwestern frontier amid concurrent tensions with the and the , paraded captured Indian soldiers in propaganda displays but repatriated most POWs by 1963. The conflict entrenched mutual distrust, with India viewing China's actions as aggressive expansionism and China perceiving India's forward policy—establishing over 60 outposts in disputed areas since 1959—as provocative encroachment. No formal emerged, leaving the LAC prone to ambiguities and future clashes, while India's wartime appeal for Western aid marked a pragmatic pivot from non-alignment, receiving arms from the and . Long-term, the war catalyzed India's military modernization but also fostered a of , given prior Panchsheel agreements, hindering normalization until the 1970s.

Normalization Attempts (1970s–1990s)

In 1976, and agreed to resume ambassadorial-level diplomatic relations after a 15-year hiatus stemming from the 1962 border war, marking the first substantive step toward thawing bilateral ties. This development followed internal political shifts in both nations, including India's under and 's post-Mao stabilization under , which prioritized pragmatic foreign policy adjustments over ideological confrontation. Direct trade and consular exchanges were reinstated the following year in 1977, facilitating limited economic contacts despite persistent border mistrust. High-level diplomatic engagements accelerated in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In 1979, India's External Affairs Minister visited , the first such ministerial trip since the war, where discussions emphasized mutual non-interference and potential cooperation on regional issues. Formal border negotiations commenced in December 1981 in , initiating a series of eight rounds of talks by 1988 focused on clarifying the (LAC), though progress remained stalled by divergent territorial claims. These efforts reflected China's broader strategy under Deng to diversify partnerships amid U.S.-Soviet tensions, viewing as a counterweight to Soviet influence in . A pivotal breakthrough occurred during Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's official visit to China from December 19 to 23, 1988—the first by an Indian premier since in 1954. Gandhi met with paramount leader and Premier , resulting in a joint communique that established the India-China Joint Working Group (JWG) on the boundary question to institutionalize dialogue and prevent military escalations. The visit symbolized a mutual commitment to shelve the border dispute temporarily in favor of economic and political normalization, with both sides agreeing to reduce troop deployments along the LAC and expand bilateral trade, which grew modestly from negligible levels post-1962. Building on this momentum, the 1990s saw formalized agreements amid India's and China's post-Tiananmen diplomatic outreach. During P.V. Narasimha Rao's visit to in September 1993, the two nations signed the "Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility along the in the India-China Border Areas," committing to non-aggression, prior notification of military exercises, and to avert incidents. This pact, negotiated through the JWG, aimed to stabilize the frontier without resolving underlying claims, reflecting pragmatic realism driven by both countries' focus on domestic growth over territorial revisionism. In 1996, a supplementary "Agreement on Confidence-Building Measures in the Military Field along the " further prohibited force, limited infrastructure development, and promoted transparency, though implementation faced challenges from mutual suspicions and China's growing assertiveness in . These instruments facilitated over a dozen JWG meetings by decade's end but yielded no boundary delineation, underscoring the limits of normalization amid asymmetric power dynamics.

Economic Integration Amid Tensions (2000s)

Bilateral trade between and expanded significantly during the 2000s, rising from approximately $2.92 billion in 2000 to over $50 billion by the end of the decade, driven by 's accession to the in 2001 and 's economic liberalization efforts. This growth reflected pragmatic economic engagement, with exporting primary commodities like and pharmaceuticals to , while importing manufactured goods such as machinery and electronics, which fueled 's infrastructure boom but also began fostering dependency on Chinese supply chains. Key diplomatic initiatives underscored this integration. In 2003, during Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's visit to , the two nations signed agreements on economic cooperation, including protocols for sanitary and phytosanitary measures under their 2000 bilateral WTO accession pact, aiming to facilitate agricultural trade and reduce non-tariff barriers. By 2005, they elevated ties to a "strategic and cooperative partnership," setting trade targets of $20 billion by 2008 and $30 billion by 2010, which were met amid mutual pledges for joint ventures in sectors like and . The reopening of the pass in 2006 for border trade further symbolized thawing economic barriers, though volumes remained modest at under $20 million annually due to infrastructural limitations. Despite these advances, a widening imbalance emerged, with India's exports to growing from $1.35 billion in 2000 to $20.8 billion in 2010, while imports surged faster, yielding a deficit of $0.34 billion as early as 2002 that escalated thereafter. Chinese foreign direct investment in India remained negligible, totaling under $1 billion cumulatively through the decade, hampered by Indian security reviews and mutual suspicions over transfers. This economic deepening occurred against persistent border tensions, including Chinese incursions in and infrastructure buildup along the , yet leaders prioritized commerce as a stabilizer. Indian policymakers viewed Chinese imports as essential for growth, while sought Indian markets to offset its domestic overcapacity, illustrating a causal dynamic where mutual economic incentives outweighed geopolitical frictions in the short term. However, the asymmetry—China's export dominance and India's raw material reliance—sowed seeds for future vulnerabilities, as evidenced by early complaints over dumped goods like .

Escalation and Standoffs (2010s–2020 Galwan Clash)

Tensions along the (LAC) escalated in the 2010s amid accelerated infrastructure development by both nations, overlapping patrols, and unresolved territorial claims, leading to a series of standoffs that tested bilateral mechanisms without resulting in fatalities until 2020. Chinese incursions often coincided with Indian road-building efforts, as sought to assert control over disputed sectors while countered with its projects to improve access. These incidents highlighted the fragility of flag meetings and hotlines established under prior agreements, with de-escalations relying on mutual withdrawals rather than demarcation. The first major standoff occurred in the Depsang Bulge of eastern from April 15 to May 5, 2013, when approximately 50 (PLA) troops crossed the LAC and established a tented encampment about 19 kilometers into territory claimed by near the Raki Nala area. responded by deploying troops to block further advances, prompting diplomatic protests; China cited Indian construction activities as provocation, though the incursion disrupted Indian patrols in a strategically vital plain linking to the . Resolution came via bilateral flag meetings, with both sides withdrawing to pre-standoff positions, averting escalation but exposing gaps in LAC perception. In September 2014, dual incidents unfolded in : at Chumar, where over 1,000 Chinese troops confronted Indian forces amid road construction, leading to a 16-day face-off resolved by simultaneous pullbacks during Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to ; and at Demchok, triggered by Indian canal digging, prompting Chinese troop deployment and eventual de-escalation through talks. These events, peaking with 1,000 Indian and Chinese personnel amassed at Chumar, underscored China's use of pressure to influence Indian infrastructure, coinciding with Xi's emphasis on assertiveness. No shots were fired, but the standoffs strained ties amid growing economic interdependence. The plateau standoff from June 16 to August 28, 2017, marked the longest confrontation in decades, involving Indian intervention to halt Chinese in Bhutanese at the India--Bhutan trijunction, a site critical for India's access. Approximately 270 Indian troops advanced 180 meters into the area to dismantle equipment, facing off against 300-400 PLA personnel; claimed the plateau as its own, while Bhutan protested the incursion. Diplomatic channels, including Bhutanese appeals, led to mutual disengagement, with ceasing and India withdrawing forward positions, though later resumed some activity. Injuries occurred on both sides from scuffles, but no deaths; the episode fueled Chinese media warnings of war and Indian domestic resolve. Escalation peaked in 2020 with skirmishes across starting in early May, as PLA forces advanced into multiple points including Galwan Valley, , and Depsang, amassing over 5,000 troops against Indian deployments amid New Delhi's bridge construction over the . On June 15-16, a violent in Galwan Valley—using clubs, stones, and improvised weapons—resulted in 20 Indian deaths, including Colonel , with China acknowledging four fatalities in February 2021 after initial denials. The clash, the deadliest since 1975, stemmed from a disputed patrol point where Indian troops sought to remove a Chinese tent, leading to near a fast-flowing river; independent estimates suggest higher Chinese losses, potentially dozens from drowning and falls. It prompted India to ban Chinese apps, restrict investments, and bolster border forces, while freezing de-escalation talks amid ongoing troop buildups exceeding 50,000 on each side.

Recent De-escalation Efforts (2021–2025)

Following the deadly Galwan Valley clash in June 2020, India and China commenced over 20 rounds of Corps Commander-level talks to address forward deployments along the Line of Actual Control in eastern Ladakh. The initial significant disengagement occurred on February 11, 2021, at Pangong Tso lake, where both sides withdrew troops from the north and south banks, ceased forward patrols in friction areas, and dismantled temporary structures such as tents and observation posts. Further progress in 2021 included disengagement from Patrolling Point 17A in the Gogra-Hot Springs area in August, establishing buffer zones to prevent encounters. By September 2022, troops disengaged from Patrolling Point 15 in the same sector, verified through satellite imagery and on-ground inspections, though negotiations stalled on remaining sites like Depsang and Demchok. A breakthrough came on October 21, 2024, with an agreement on patrolling arrangements in Depsang and Demchok, facilitating full disengagement by late October and resuming traditional patrols while maintaining established buffer zones to avoid confrontations. This paved the way for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping's first formal bilateral meeting in five years on October 23, 2024, during the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, where they committed to implementing the patrolling pact and stabilizing border management. In 2025, de-escalation advanced through diplomatic channels, including Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's August visit to India, which yielded confidence-building measures such as resumed direct flights and reopened border trade points. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar highlighted "good progress" in border talks over the prior nine months as of July 2025, yet noted persistent deployments of 50,000-60,000 troops per side, underscoring the need for broader de-induction. Subsequent Modi-Xi engagements in August and September 2025 signaled a relational thaw, focusing on narrowing trade deficits and expanding market access, though core territorial claims and infrastructure expansions along the LAC continued to constrain complete normalization. In January 2026, a six-member delegation from the Communist Party of China's International Liaison Department, led by Vice Minister Sun Haiyan, visited BJP headquarters in New Delhi and met with a BJP delegation headed by General Secretary Arun Singh to discuss advancing inter-party communications; Chinese Ambassador to India Xu Feihong attended the meeting, and the delegation was scheduled to hold discussions with Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh officials.

Military and Security Dimensions

Infrastructure Buildup and Border Incursions

has significantly expanded its border infrastructure along the (LAC) since the early , including roads, railways, airports, and dual-use settlements, to enhance and assert territorial claims. Key projects include upgrades to air bases such as and , and the construction of the Frontier Highway (NH 913) parallel to the border for rapid troop deployment. By 2024, had built over 600 "Xiaokang" or well-off villages near the LAC, many serving dual civilian-military purposes, with clusters in and sectors; for instance, 90 new villages were under construction along the Arunachal border as of February 2025, and a settlement with 91 structures appeared near Pangong Lake by March 2025. These efforts, part of a broader gray-zone strategy involving dams and digital surveillance on the , aim to consolidate control and facilitate . In response, India accelerated infrastructure development through the Border Roads Organisation (BRO), focusing on roads, tunnels, and bridges to match China's advances and improve deployment times. Under the India-China Border Roads (ICBR) program, Phases I and II were largely completed by 2024, covering 1,435 kilometers of strategic roads, with Phase III underway; this includes 73 planned roads along the LAC and tunnels under 11 mountain passes, such as the 9.2-km Atal Tunnel reducing Manali-Lahaul travel by 4-5 hours. By 2023, India completed 90 new projects to narrow the infrastructure gap, and BRO had constructed over 55,000 km of roads and 450 permanent bridges by 2022; recent milestones include opening the world's highest motorable road at Mig La Pass in Ladakh on October 9, 2025. This buildup reflects India's post-2013 policy shift to prioritize forward positioning after incidents like Doklam, enabling faster mobilization amid persistent disparities in all-weather access. Mutual infrastructure expansion has correlated with increased People's Liberation Army (PLA) incursions and transgressions across the 3,488-km LAC, heightening risks of miscalculation. Indian government data indicate an average of 334 transgressions annually in the decade prior to 2020, with over 660 LAC violations and 108 aerial intrusions reported in 2019 alone; geospatial analyses of major incidents from 2007-2022 show patterns of PLA advances in and Arunachal, often probing perceived Indian vulnerabilities. These activities, including patrols into disputed areas like Depsang and Demchok, have escalated tensions, culminating in standoffs such as the 2020 Galwan Valley clash where over 100,000 troops were deployed by both sides; incursions persist post-2020, with satellite imagery confirming ongoing Chinese construction during de-escalation talks. While frames such moves as routine, Indian assessments view them as salami-slicing tactics to alter the status quo, exacerbated by underdeveloped Indian infrastructure until recent years.

Conventional and Nuclear Posturing

Both nations have significantly enhanced their conventional military postures along the (LAC) since the 2020 Galwan Valley clash, with maintaining a numerical and logistical edge due to its proximity to the border and extensive infrastructure investments. As of 2025, has deployed approximately 20,000–25,000 troops in forward areas like Ngari and , supported by artillery, air defense systems, and rapid redeployment capabilities enabled by high-altitude rail and road networks, allowing forces to retreat 150 kilometers and return within 2–3 hours. has countered with accelerated border infrastructure development, including new roads, tunnels, bridges, and airstrips under projects like the Border Roads Organisation's post-Galwan surge, alongside upgrades to strategic routes such as the Darbuk-Shyok-Daulat Beg Oldi road to facilitate tank and missile mobility. Recent from October 2025 reveals 's construction of new air-defense complexes near Pangong Lake, including command buildings and vehicle sheds, while conducts tri-service exercises to integrate air defense and ground forces, though primarily focused on western borders. These developments reflect a pattern of "salami-slicing" tactics by —incremental encroachments and fortifications—and 's responsive deterrence buildup, sustaining a fragile despite partial disengagements in 2024–2025. Nuclear posturing underscores mutual deterrence amid conventional asymmetries, with both adhering to no-first-use policies but exhibiting asymmetries in size and modernization pace. As of January 2025, India's nuclear stockpile stands at approximately 180 warheads, emphasizing delivered via land-based missiles like (range up to 5,000+ km), submarine-launched ballistic missiles on INS Arihant-class vessels, and , with ongoing development of MIRV-capable systems for enhanced survivability. possesses around 600 operational warheads, having expanded from 500 in 2024 through annual additions of about 100, supported by silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (e.g., ), growing submarine fleets, and bomber capabilities, raising questions about the credibility of its no-first-use pledge amid rapid buildup toward 1,000 warheads by 2030. India's prioritizes retaliation against nuclear attack, viewing 's expansion as a prompt for measured growth and technological upgrades rather than parity, while Chinese advancements in hypersonic and fractional orbital systems could complicate India's second-strike assurances. This dynamic fosters strategic stability through assured retaliation but heightens risks of miscalculation, as conventional crises could escalate if nuclear thresholds blur, particularly given 's conventional superiority along the LAC. Strategic analyses assess that a full-scale war remains unlikely due to mutual nuclear deterrence reinforced by no-first-use policies, the prohibitive costs of economic interdependence, international pressures from global powers to avert escalation, and China's internal economic slowdowns and demographic challenges constraining aggressive postures.

Proxy Influences and Pakistan Factor

China's with , often termed an "all-weather" , functions as a key proxy mechanism to constrain India's regional influence, amplifying bilateral tensions through coordinated diplomatic, military, and economic actions. This relationship, rooted in mutual opposition to Indian dominance in , enables China to exert indirect pressure on India without direct confrontation, while bolstering 's capabilities against its larger neighbor. India views this axis as fostering a persistent two-front , where Sino-Pakistani collaboration could synchronize border incursions or escalations along the (LAC) and (LoC). Militarily, the partnership manifests in extensive arms transfers and joint operations that enhance Pakistan's deterrence against . China supplied 81% of Pakistan's imported weapons from 2020 to 2024, including advanced fighter jets, submarines, and missile systems, positioning Pakistan as the recipient of approximately 40-47% of 's global arms exports during overlapping periods. Regular bilateral exercises, such as the Shaheen series—culminating in Shaheen VIII in 2019—focus on air combat interoperability and have paved the way for deals like Pakistan's acquisition of Chinese J-10C fighters. During the May 2025 India- clashes, Chinese provision of real-time intelligence inputs to Pakistani forces underscored the operational depth of this support, enabling Pakistan to counter Indian strikes more effectively. Historically, backed Pakistan logistically during the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pakistani wars, threatening intervention in the latter to deter Indian advances. Diplomatically, China has leveraged its United Nations Security Council veto to shield Pakistan-linked militants, obstructing India's efforts to designate terrorists under the 1267 sanctions regime. Beijing blocked resolutions against Jaish-e-Mohammed leader Masood Azhar four times between 2017 and 2019, citing insufficient evidence despite his group's responsibility for attacks like the 2019 Pulwama bombing that killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel; the hold was lifted only in May 2019 amid mounting international pressure. More recently, in May 2025, China reportedly vetoed sanctions on five additional Pakistan-based terrorists proposed by India following cross-border incidents. In the Kashmir dispute, China endorses Pakistan's sovereignty claims over disputed territories, including issuing stapled visas to residents of Gilgit-Baltistan since 2010 and affirming Pakistan's "territorial integrity" post-2025 escalations, which India interprets as undermining its claims to the region. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), launched in 2015 as a flagship project valued at over $60 billion, exemplifies economic proxy influence by traversing —a Pakistan-administered area asserts as integral to Jammu and Kashmir—thus altering the status quo on contested terrain. Indian objections, voiced consistently since inception, argue that CPEC legitimizes Pakistan's control and facilitates Chinese military logistics, with infrastructure like roads and pipelines enabling rapid troop deployments that heighten 's strategic vulnerabilities. dismisses these concerns, framing CPEC as purely economic, yet its extension into Pakistan-occupied has prompted to diversify infrastructure along its borders and deepen ties with U.S.-led partnerships to offset encirclement. This fusion of economic investment with security implications reinforces perceptions of Pakistan as China's proxy for projecting power into , complicating 's border management and resource allocation.

Economic Interdependence and Frictions

Trade Volumes, Imbalances, and Dependencies

Bilateral trade between and reached US$127.71 billion in 2024–25 (April 2023–March 2024), up from US$118.40 billion in the previous year, with remaining 's largest trading partner. 's exports to totaled US$14.25 billion, primarily comprising raw materials like , marine products, and organic chemicals, while imports from amounted to US$113.5 billion. This asymmetry reflects 's limited competitiveness in high-value goods against 's scale advantages in production. The imbalance has widened significantly, with India's deficit against hitting US$99.2 billion in 2024–25, accounting for approximately 35% of India's overall deficit of US$283 billion. From US$85.1 billion in 2023–24, the gap grew due to surging imports of capital goods and amid India's push, while exports stagnated amid Chinese demand shifts and non-tariff barriers like stringent quality inspections. This persistent deficit, which escalated 106% from US$52 billion in 2019 to over US$100 billion by 2023, underscores structural vulnerabilities rather than temporary cyclical factors. India's dependencies on Chinese imports are acute in strategic sectors, exacerbating risks of supply disruptions. Electrical and electronic equipment constitutes the largest import category, with China supplying over 70% of India's electronic components essential for domestic assembly of smartphones and appliances. Machinery, including for and nuclear reactors, follows closely, comprising about 30% of India's total industrial goods imports from . In pharmaceuticals, 70–80% of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) originate from , posing concerns given the sector's role in healthcare self-reliance. These dependencies stem from China's cost efficiencies and integrated supply chains, though efforts to diversify via policies like Production Linked Incentives have yielded limited offsets thus far.

Investment Flows and Supply Chain Vulnerabilities

Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) into India has remained modest, totaling approximately US$2.5 billion cumulatively from April 2000 to March 2025, representing just 0.3% of India's overall FDI inflows during that period. This limited flow stems from India's regulatory framework, which post-2020 Galwan Valley clash intensified scrutiny via Press Note 3 of 2020, mandating prior government approval for investments from entities based in countries sharing a land border with India, including China, to mitigate national security risks. Annual inflows from China peaked at around US$2 billion in fiscal year 2016–17 but declined sharply thereafter, with near-zero approvals in recent years due to geopolitical tensions and India's push for economic self-reliance. Conversely, Indian FDI outflows to China have been similarly negligible, also aggregating US$2.5 billion over the same timeframe, reflecting mutual wariness and India's prioritization of domestic manufacturing over overseas expansion into a strategic rival's economy. India's supply chains exhibit acute vulnerabilities to disruptions from , given the latter's dominance as a supplier of critical inputs across sectors. In 2024–25, India's deficit with approached $100 billion, driven by heavy reliance on Chinese imports for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), where over 60% originate from ; electronics components, accounting for 40–50% of India's needs; and solar photovoltaic modules, polysilicon, and batteries, exposing ambitions to potential controls. These dependencies, amplified by 's control over 80–90% of global rare earth processing and key minerals like , create leverage points for economic , as demonstrated by Beijing's 2025 restrictions on strategic materials that disrupted Indian . standoffs since 2020 have heightened these risks, prompting supply halts in select cases and forcing Indian firms to stockpile imports amid fears of retaliatory measures, though diversification via Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes has yielded only partial success, with import reliance persisting at 30% or more in vulnerable industries. Geopolitical frictions have catalytically exposed and exacerbated these interdependencies, with India's post-Galwan actions—including bans on over 500 Chinese apps and heightened tariffs—aiming to insulate supply chains but inadvertently raising costs and delaying localization efforts. Reports from think tanks underscore that 's ability to weaponize , as seen in restrictions against other neighbors, poses a systemic to India's industrial base, particularly in defense-related where dual-use components from comprise up to 70% of inputs. Despite recent border pacts in late 2024, underlying asymmetries persist, with India's participation lagging at under 2% compared to 's 20%, limiting resilience against coerced disruptions.

Policy Responses: Tariffs, Bans, and Diversification

In response to the 2020 Galwan Valley clash, the Indian government imposed bans on Chinese mobile applications citing threats to data sovereignty and national security under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. On June 29, 2020, 59 apps including TikTok and WeChat were prohibited, followed by 118 more on September 2, 2020, and additional waves totaling over 220 apps by early 2021, encompassing platforms from ByteDance, Tencent, and Alibaba. These measures disrupted services with hundreds of millions of Indian users but faced circumvention attempts, with some apps re-emerging under new guises; enforcement persisted into 2025 without full reversal. To mitigate risks of opportunistic acquisitions amid border tensions and the COVID-19 pandemic, India amended its foreign direct investment (FDI) policy via Press Note 3 on April 17, 2020, mandating prior government approval for investments from entities in countries sharing land borders, primarily targeting China. This routed nearly all Chinese FDI proposals—down from automatic approval routes—through scrutiny by the relevant ministries, resulting in approvals dropping sharply; for instance, Chinese FDI inflows fell from $2.3 billion in FY2019-20 to under $100 million annually post-2020. By 2025, the policy remained in effect, though recommendations from NITI Aayog proposed limited easing for stakes up to 24% in non-sensitive sectors like manufacturing and renewables to balance security with economic needs, without implementation as of October. In January 2026, India's Finance Ministry proposed scrapping the separate 2020 restrictions barring Chinese companies from bidding for government contracts, according to government sources; the move aims to revive commercial ties amid eased border tensions. India eschewed broad tariffs on Chinese imports, opting instead for targeted anti-dumping duties and non-tariff barriers to address unfair trade practices and supply vulnerabilities. Post-2020, duties were imposed or extended on goods such as solar cells and modules (up to 40% safeguard duty until 2026), chemicals, steel products, and electronics components, with specific actions including $614 per tonne on certain polyester yarns in October 2024. Quality control orders restricted imports of items like toys and steel, while basic customs duties on electronics rose to 20-30% to favor domestic production, reducing reliance on Chinese intermediates in sectors like mobiles where imports dropped 40% by 2023. These steps, however, did not curb overall trade deficits, which widened to $85 billion in FY2023-24, underscoring persistent dependencies. Diversification efforts crystallized under the Atmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India) initiative, launched May 2020, emphasizing domestic manufacturing to lessen China exposure through incentives and partnerships. The Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes, rolled out from 2020 across 14 sectors including electronics, pharmaceuticals, and automobiles, allocated over ₹1.97 lakh crore ($24 billion) by 2024, attracting ₹1.46 lakh crore in investments and boosting output to ₹12.5 lakh crore. Mobile phone production, for example, surged from assembly-heavy imports (80% from China in 2019) to exports exceeding $12 billion by 2024, with firms like Apple shifting 10-14% of capacity to India. Complementary measures included semiconductor missions with global allies (e.g., US iCET framework) and "China+1" strategies, though critical inputs like APIs and rare earths remained 60-70% China-sourced as of 2025, prompting ongoing scrutiny rather than full decoupling.

Regional and Multilateral Engagements

Competition in South Asia (Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka)

China has sought to expand its influence in through the (BRI), offering infrastructure financing and development projects that challenge India's longstanding dominance rooted in historical, cultural, and security ties with neighbors like , , and . In these Himalayan and states, Beijing's investments often prioritize strategic assets such as ports, roads, and , while counters with economic aid, connectivity projects, and military assistance, viewing Chinese inroads as encroachments on its regional security perimeter. This rivalry has intensified since 2020 amid broader Sino-Indian border tensions, with smaller states navigating between the powers to maximize benefits without alienating either. In Nepal, China has ramped up economic engagement, particularly in hydropower and transport infrastructure, with projects like the Pokhara International Airport and trans-Himalayan railways funded under BRI agreements signed in 2018 and expanded post-2020. These initiatives address Nepal's landlocked constraints but have raised Indian concerns over debt sustainability and strategic access, especially after the 2015 Indian economic blockade—perceived in Kathmandu as coercive—prompted Nepal to diversify toward Beijing, culminating in a 2016 transit treaty with China. India retains advantages through open borders, remittances (over 60% of Nepal's total from India), and cultural affinity, but Chinese exports now dominate Nepalese markets, comprising about 14% of imports by 2023, while Nepal's hydropower potential—estimated at 83,000 MW—draws competing bids from both nations. Surveys indicate Nepalese public preference for India as a primary partner, yet pragmatic shifts toward China for economic gains persist amid political instability. Bhutan's position exemplifies the security dimensions of this competition, as the kingdom relies heavily on India for defense under a 1949 treaty renewed in 2007, which includes Indian troop presence and annual aid exceeding $100 million. China claims approximately 764 square kilometers of Bhutanese territory in the western sector and has pursued border negotiations since establishing diplomatic ties in 1984, offering aid packages and infrastructure like the Gelephu-Menkari road built in 2023 without Thimphu's full consent, prompting accusations of salami-slicing tactics. The 2017 Doklam standoff, where Indian forces halted Chinese road construction on Bhutanese-claimed land near the trijunction, underscored New Delhi's commitment to Bhutan's sovereignty, as Thimphu lacks the capacity to independently counter Beijing's advances. Recent rounds of Sino-Bhutanese talks in 2023-2024 have explored boundary settlements involving land swaps, but Bhutan has conditioned progress on Indian consultations, reflecting its delicate balancing act amid China's growing economic overtures, including pledges of $130 million in grants since 2010. Sri Lanka's experience highlights maritime and debt-related frictions, where Chinese financing for the Hambantota Port—loaned $1.12 billion by China EXIM Bank in 2008—led to a 2017 debt-equity swap granting Beijing a 70% stake and 99-year lease after Colombo defaulted amid fiscal distress. Though proponents argue the port's underutilization stemmed from Sri Lankan mismanagement rather than deliberate entrapment, the asset's dual-use potential for People's Liberation Army Navy logistics alarms India, given its proximity to key sea lanes. China holds about 10-20% of Sri Lanka's external debt as of 2023, fueling narratives of over-lending, while India has responded with $4 billion in aid and lines of credit since 2020, including emergency fuel supplies during the 2022 crisis, to bolster ties. Colombo's post-Rajapaksa governments have sought to diversify, renegotiating terms and welcoming Indian investments in ports like Colombo and Trincomalee, yet continued BRI projects like the Colombo Port City—70% Chinese-owned—sustain New Delhi's strategic apprehensions over encirclement.

Engagements with Global Powers (US, Russia, Quad)

India's strategic partnership with the has intensified since the 2020 Galwan Valley clash, with seeking to diversify defense procurement and enhance interoperability to counterbalance 's border assertiveness. This includes major arms deals, such as the acquisition of U.S. MQ-9B drones approved in , and joint exercises like Malabar, which expanded to include all Quad members by 2020. has consistently framed this alignment as a U.S.-orchestrated effort to encircle , with state media and officials decrying it as interference in regional affairs that exacerbates India- frictions rather than resolving them. However, India's commitment to limits full convergence with Washington, as evidenced by 's abstentions on UN votes condemning 's invasion. The (Quad), comprising the U.S., , , and , was revived in 2017 amid China's maritime expansion and gained momentum after the 2020 border standoff, focusing on security, , and countering coercion. has participated in Quad summits, including the 2021 in-person meeting in Washington, and collaborative initiatives like the 2021 vaccine distribution effort, though emphasizes it as a flexible forum rather than a . views the Quad as an "Asian " aimed at containing China, prompting diplomatic protests and military posturing in the , which has indirectly heightened India-China tensions by signaling to the costs of perceived encirclement. Chinese analyses predict sustained Indian engagement but note its reticence prevents the grouping from becoming a robust deterrent. India's enduring ties with Russia serve as a counterweight in the trilateral dynamic, with Moscow supplying approximately 60% of India's military hardware and 40% of its oil imports as of 2025, despite Western sanctions. Russia positions itself as a mediator, advocating for India-China border de-escalation during annual summits, such as Putin's 2024 visit to New Delhi where he urged normalization amid Beijing's "no-limits" partnership with Moscow. This balancing act has strained under China's growing influence over Russia, yet India-Russia defense pacts, including the 2021 S-400 deliveries, provide leverage against over-reliance on U.S. systems, complicating China's efforts to isolate India regionally. In 2025, U.S. tariff impositions under the Trump administration have prompted India to recalibrate, fostering trilateral China-India-Russia dialogues to hedge against transatlantic uncertainties.

Overlaps in Forums (BRICS, SCO) and Divergences

China and India, as original members of BRICS since its inception in 2009, share overlapping interests in promoting multipolarity and representing the Global South against perceived Western dominance in global institutions. Both nations collaborate within BRICS on economic initiatives, such as the New Development Bank established in 2014, which has approved over $30 billion in loans for infrastructure projects by 2023, with India and China as major beneficiaries and contributors. In the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), India joined as a full member in 2017, following China's invitation, enabling joint efforts in regional security, counter-terrorism exercises like the 2023 "Mission Excellence" drills involving both countries, and economic connectivity discussions. Recent diplomatic engagements, including the Modi-Xi meeting on the sidelines of the October 2024 BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia, underscored commitments to stabilize bilateral ties through these forums, with agreements on mutual support for future summits—China backing India's 2026 BRICS chairship and India reciprocating for China's 2027 turn. At the SCO's 25th Summit in , , on August 31–September 1, 2025, Modi's attendance highlighted a tentative reset in relations, focusing on shared priorities like reform and countering non-traditional security threats, though interactions remained constrained by broader geopolitical frictions. These platforms facilitate trilateral coordination with , as seen in RIC (Russia-India-China) dialogues embedded within and SCO, advocating for de-dollarization and alternative payment systems, with BRICS trade in local currencies rising to 28% by mid-2024. Despite these alignments, divergences persist, particularly over BRICS expansion. China aggressively championed the 2023 invitation and 2024 accession of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, aiming to enhance its influence, while India expressed ambivalence, concerned about diluting consensus-based decision-making and potential shifts toward a China-centric bloc that could marginalize smaller members. This tension was evident at the 2024 Kazan Summit, where differing visions on institutional reform—India prioritizing inclusivity and veto safeguards versus China's push for rapid enlargement—highlighted underlying rivalry. In SCO, India's participation is complicated by Pakistan's membership and the China-Pakistan alliance, which often prioritizes Central Asian connectivity projects like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor over India's security concerns, leading to India's abstention from certain joint statements. Broader goals diverge: India leverages and SCO to hedge against U.S. alignment via the Quad, emphasizing non-alignment and internationalization, while seeks to consolidate through these groups, as noted in analyses of its dominance in agenda-setting and funding. Such frictions risk rendering these forums dysfunctional if bilateral border disputes spill over, though both nations continue selective cooperation to counterbalance G7-led orders.

Resource Competition and Hydro-Politics

Transboundary Water Disputes (Brahmaputra, Indus)

controls the upstream reaches of the , known as the in , which flows into India's northeastern states and , supplying water for agriculture and to over 100 million people downstream. has expressed concerns over 's construction of multiple dams, including the operational since 2015 and planned projects like the Bayu, Jiexi, and a 1,000-km for diversion, fearing reduced flows, increased flooding risks, and sediment trapping that could disrupt monsoon-dependent farming in . In December 2024, approved the Medong Hydropower Station, a mega-dam on the capable of generating 60,000 MW, prompting officials to warn of potential dry-season flow reductions up to 85% and ecological damage to the river's canyon ecosystem. A 2006 memorandum of understanding between and facilitated limited hydrological data sharing on the Brahmaputra—rainfall, water levels, and discharge twice daily during floods—but implementation has been inconsistent. suspended data provision after the 2017 standoff and has not resumed full sharing since 2022, with the agreement expiring on June 5, 2023, exacerbating Indian apprehensions amid opaque dam operations and unverified claims of minimal downstream impact. Chinese state media assert that dams primarily generate clean energy without significant diversion, citing technical feasibility studies, though independent analyses highlight data deficiencies inflating fears while underscoring the need for transparency to mitigate conflict risks. The , originating in and flowing through Indian before entering , presents a secondary but interconnected dispute, as develops upstream infrastructure on its tributaries like the , potentially affecting flows governed by the 1960 India- . Since 2020, has accelerated hydro-projects on the upper , raising Indian concerns over cumulative upstream control—encompassing 110 shared transboundary water bodies—that could enable leverage in regional tensions, including unverified rumors in 2025 of retaliatory blocking tied to India's partial suspension of the treaty with . Unlike the Brahmaputra, no bilateral data-sharing pact exists for the , amplifying vulnerabilities; experts note 's non-transparent expansions, such as dams in , could exacerbate downstream scarcity during droughts without violating international norms but eroding trust in hydro-diplomacy. Bilateral talks, including expert-level meetings in 2023-2024, have sought cooperation frameworks, but progress stalls on binding treaties, with India advocating multilateral riparian principles under the UN Watercourses Convention—ratified by neither party—while prioritizes sovereignty over shared resources. Game-theoretic models of interactions since 2002 indicate a pattern of favoring 's upstream position, yet empirical data shows low probability of outright "water wars" due to mutual and high diversion costs, though flashpoints like the 2025 mega-dam approval heighten strategic frictions.

Energy Resource Rivalries in Neighborhood

and , as major energy importers, have engaged in competition over hydrocarbon resources and infrastructure in neighboring countries, particularly , , and , to secure alternative supply routes and diversify imports amid vulnerabilities in sea lanes like the . This rivalry reflects broader strategic interests, with leveraging (BRI) projects to build pipelines and ports, while pursues bilateral investments to counterbalance influence and ensure access to offshore gas fields. Both nations prioritize these efforts due to 's proven reserves—estimated at 2.5 trillion cubic feet of and significant crude oil—and its position as a land bridge to the . In Myanmar, competition centers on the development of oil and gas and exploration blocks. (CNPC) constructed the Myanmar-China oil , spanning 771 kilometers within Myanmar from Kyaukpyu to in Province, with an annual capacity of 22 million tons of crude oil, operational since 2017. Parallel to this, the Sino-Myanmar gas , 793 kilometers long in Myanmar, began operations in 2013, transporting from the Shwe field to at a rate of up to 30 billion cubic meters per year. These projects, costing approximately $2.5 billion for the oil line alone, enable to bypass maritime chokepoints and import hydrocarbons directly from the . , through ONGC Videsh Limited (OVL) and , holds stakes in blocks A-1 and A-3 offshore , investing $3.7 billion collectively with partners for gas field development, including the Shwe project where OVL committed an additional $121 million in 2020 for enhanced recovery. 's 2010 investments totaled $502 million in gas fields and onshore , though post-2021 coup instability has stalled some Indian projects while Chinese operations continue under military-backed arrangements. Extending to Pakistan, China's China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) incorporates energy projects valued at over $20 billion as of 2018, including coal-fired power plants, Thar coalfield mining (with reserves exceeding 175 billion tons), and LNG terminals, adding 4,000 megawatts to Pakistan's grid by 2020 to alleviate chronic shortages. These initiatives secure China's access to Gwadar port for potential oil imports and overland routes, heightening Indian concerns over strategic encirclement, as CPEC traverses disputed Kashmir territory claimed by India. India lacks comparable leverage in Pakistan but views these developments as tilting regional energy flows toward Beijing, prompting New Delhi to bolster alternatives like the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline concept, though unimplemented due to geopolitical frictions. In , Chinese firms dominate coal power investments, committing $450 million by 2021 for plants like Rampal (1,320 megawatts), enhancing Dhaka's energy mix amid import dependence. counters with exports from its grid—supplying 1,160 megawatts as of 2023—and proposals for joint ventures, motivated partly by to offset China's BRI loans exceeding $4 billion in energy infrastructure. This dynamic allows to extract concessions from both, but underscores China's edge in financing projects, with emphasizing renewables and cross-border power to maintain influence. Overall, these rivalries have led to overlapping bids for blocks and infrastructure, with China's state-backed financing often outpacing 's, though political instability in host countries like introduces risks to long-term viability.

Cultural Exchanges and Public Perceptions

Historical Soft Power and Modern Exchanges

The transmission of Buddhism from ancient India to China represents a pivotal element of historical soft power, commencing in the 1st century CE during the Han dynasty via the Silk Road networks. Buddhist missionaries and merchants introduced core doctrines, texts, and practices that reshaped Chinese religious, philosophical, and artistic landscapes, with over 1,000 years of sustained influence leading to the establishment of major sects like Chan (Zen). Prominent Chinese pilgrims exemplified this exchange: Faxian departed for India in 399 CE, documenting monastic sites and translating scriptures upon return; Xuanzang undertook his famed journey in 629 CE, retrieving 657 texts from Nalanda University and authoring the Great Tang Records on the Western Regions, which detailed Indian society and facilitated hundreds of translations into Chinese. These efforts embedded Indian cosmological and ethical concepts into Chinese culture, including adaptations of Hindu deities into Buddhist iconography. Complementing religious diffusion, ancient trade routes—overland via and maritime through the —exchanged commodities like Indian spices, cotton textiles, and gems for Chinese and ceramics, with the Southern Silk Route linking northeastern India to province through spanning over 2,000 km and active from the 2nd century BCE. This economic interplay, peaking under the (1st–3rd centuries CE), amplified cultural osmosis, including influences on Chinese from Ayurvedic principles and vice versa through shared knowledge. In modern eras, bilateral cultural agreements have institutionalized exchanges, such as the 2013–2015 Programme of Cultural Exchange promoting joint performances, art exhibitions, and scholarly visits. , an Indian spiritual-physical discipline originating over 5,000 years ago, has surged in China, with practices adopted by millions and bolstered by diplomatic initiatives like International Yoga Day, endorsed by during his 2015 China visit to foster goodwill. Bollywood cinema exerts notable soft power, captivating Chinese audiences with films emphasizing family and resilience; viewership has grown, integrating into youth culture alongside Indian teas and philosophies. Educational ties include scholarships for Indian students in Chinese universities, though enrollment dipped post-2020 due to pandemic restrictions and geopolitical strains, with pre-COVID figures exceeding 20,000 annually supporting fields like engineering and Mandarin studies. Tourism flows, peaking at over 300,000 Chinese visitors to India in 2019, underscore people-to-people links but contracted sharply amid border tensions, prompting virtual exchanges and diaspora communities to sustain momentum.

Domestic Opinions and Media Narratives in Both Countries

In India, towards has deteriorated significantly since the 2020 Galwan Valley clash, with surveys indicating widespread distrust and perceptions of as a primary security threat. A 2024 survey of young Indians found that a majority identified as the biggest challenge, with strong support for enhanced alliances via the Quad to counterbalance Beijing's influence. Similarly, post-2020 polls, such as one by , revealed a sharp anti- shift, with over 70% favoring economic decoupling and boycotts of Chinese goods amid tensions. Indian media outlets, including mainstream English-language and regional vernacular press, have amplified these sentiments through extensive coverage of territorial incursions, infrastructure encroachments in areas, and alleged , often framing relations in zero-sum terms that prioritize over economic interdependence. This narrative, while diverse across outlets, reflects a post-Galwan consensus on vigilance, though some business-oriented commentary highlights trade benefits despite strategic rivalry. In China, domestic views of remain predominantly unfavorable, shaped by state-controlled media that emphasize India's alleged provocations along the and alignment with Western powers. A 2023 Tsinghua University survey reported only 8% of respondents holding a favorable of , lower than perceptions of the (12%) or (13%), attributing negativity to border disputes and India's hosting of the . Chinese public discourse, as reflected in online platforms and official commentary, portrays India as an aggressive neighbor influenced by external actors, with limited acknowledgment of mutual escalatory actions in incidents like Galwan. such as and Xinhua routinely depict Indian policies—such as infrastructure buildup in or participation in groupings—as destabilizing, while downplaying China's own salami-slicing tactics and promoting narratives of Beijing's restraint. This controlled framing aligns with priorities, fostering perceptions of as a secondary but irksome rival rather than an equal peer, with minimal space for positive cultural or economic reciprocity in public narratives. Bilateral media exchanges reveal asymmetries: Indian coverage often critiques Chinese opacity and assertiveness in global forums, while Chinese outlets selectively highlight India's internal challenges, such as economic dependencies on , to undermine New Delhi's claims. Despite occasional diplomatic thaws, like the 2024 summit interactions, domestic narratives in both countries sustain mutual suspicion, with polls showing little rebound in favorability; for instance, analyses confirm India's views have trended negative since 2010, exacerbated by resource competitions and perceived betrayals in multilateral settings. These perceptions, rooted in unresolved border ambiguities and historical grievances, constrain elite-level rapprochement efforts, as public and media pressures demand firm stances on issues.

References

  1. https://www.[statista](/page/Statista).com/chart/35003/indias-annual-trade-deficit%25252A-with-china/
  2. https://www.[statista](/page/Statista).com/chart/19582/chinese-indian-trade-relationship/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.