Explained: China's detention of Arunachal woman and the spat over the Indian state

A travel incident at Shanghai Pudong International Airport has once again placed Arunachal Pradesh at the centre of a diplomatic standoff between India and China.

What should have been a simple international transit was exaggerated by local authorities when Pem Wang Thongdok, an Indian national who has resided in the United Kingdom for over a decade, attempted to transit through Shanghai on her way from London to Osaka.

According to her statements to ANI, an immigration officer challenged the legitimacy of her Indian passport after noticing her place of birth. Thongdok recounted that the official insisted that her home state was not Indian territory.

As she described it, “She went on to say Arunachal, not India, China, China. Your visa not acceptable.” She said the officer continued questioning her documents and told her that her passport was considered “invalid.”

During the interaction, she was also mocked, with the official remarking, “You should apply for a Chinese passport.”

Thongdok later wrote on social media on Sunday, November 23, that she was left at the airport for over 18 hours without clarity on her status or the reason behind the refusal to allow her transit.

By regulation, China permits travellers of all nationalities — including Indian citizens — to transit through its airports for up to 24 hours without a visa.

This development comes as New Delhi and Beijing work to ease hostilities between them after a visit to China by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a first since their deadly military encounter in 2020.

What Arunachal Pradesh’s history tells us

Arunachal Pradesh is one of India’s northeastern “Seven Sister” states and is the largest among them by area. Its history dates back thousands of years, with archaeological indications that the region had human settlements during the Neolithic era.

Over time, various tribal communities such as the Adi, Mishmi, Nyishi, Monpa, Apatani and others established themselves in the region.

During the medieval period, the region came under the influence of the Ahom Kingdom, which ruled much of what is today Assam and surrounding territories for several centuries.

Arunachal’s frontier position also meant it had sporadic interactions with Tibet, Bhutan, and later the expanding British colonial administration.

The area was known as the North East Frontier Agency (NEFA) during the British period and retained that name for decades after India’s independence, eventually becoming a full-fledged Indian state in 1987.

China does not accept this political evolution.

It contends that much of the area historically fell under the influence of Tibet, which Beijing claims as part of its own domain following its takeover of Tibet in the mid-twentieth century.

This historical claim forms the foundation for China’s repeated references to Arunachal Pradesh as “South Tibet” or “Zangnan.”

Why Tawang is central to China’s claim

Though China asserts that the entire state belongs to it, analysts consistently point to Tawang district — in the northwestern part of Arunachal Pradesh — as the core of Beijing’s interest.

Tawang is home to the Tawang Ganden Namgyal Lhatse monastery, the second largest monastery of Tibetan Buddhism outside Lhasa.

Founded in 1680-81 in accordance with the wishes of the fifth Dalai Lama, the monastery has deep religious connections to Tibetan Buddhism. Beijing argues that these cultural and monastic ties indicate historical overlap with Tibetan administrative influence.

The Sixth Dalai Lama, Tsangyang Gyatso, was born in the region near Tawang.

Notably, when the current Dalai Lama fled Tibet in 1959 following China’s military crackdown, he entered India through Tawang and stayed briefly at the monastery.

The Monpa tribe, dominant in the Tawang region, practises Tibetan Buddhism and shares cultural traits with communities across the border in Tibet. China has often used cultural continuity to reinforce its claims.

Conversely, some experts believe China worries that the presence of ethnic groups with Tibetan cultural heritage in Indian territory could embolden future pro-democracy or pro-autonomy movements related to Tibet.

Also as it is nestled close to the tri-junction of India, Bhutan, and Tibet, Tawang sits near a key mountain corridor that links Tibet to the Brahmaputra plains.

Military planners point out that controlling this region would allow China easier access to India’s northeast, while providing India a natural defensive high ground.

How China rejects the McMahon Line

At the heart of the India-China territorial disagreement is the McMahon Line, a boundary drawn in 1914 during the Simla Convention.

The convention involved Great Britain, Tibet, and China. While the Chinese delegate attended the conference, he ultimately declined to accept the boundary agreement, arguing that Tibet did not possess the sovereign authority to negotiate independently.

India, which succeeded colonial administrative rights, maintains that the McMahon Line is a valid, internationally recognised boundary.

Beijing disagrees, rejecting the Simla Convention’s legitimacy and claiming that the boundary unfairly separated Tibetan lands.

The McMahon Line runs from Bhutan’s eastern border to a point on the China-Myanmar frontier.

China argues that territory south of the line — including most of present-day Arunachal Pradesh—was historically Tibetan, and therefore should be part of China.

India rejects this narrative, insisting that the boundary stands and that the state has always been administered as part of India.

How China continues to build its narrative

A notable part of China’s approach has been the repeated publication of renamed places in Arunachal Pradesh. Beginning in 2017, China has issued multiple lists containing Chinese names for places within the Indian state.

• In April 2017, China released “standardised” Chinese names for six locations.

• In December 2021, it issued 15 new names, including rivers, mountains, and residential areas.

• In April 2023, a third list introduced 11 more names.

• In 2024, the Chinese Civil Affairs Ministry published a further batch of 30 renamed places.

India has dismissed all these renaming exercises outright. In May earlier this year, New Delhi categorised the latest revision as a “preposterous” attempt to distort established facts, asserting that Arunachal Pradesh “was, is, and will” always remain part of India.

Indian authorities describe these names as “inventions” and view them as part of Beijing’s broader information strategy designed to shape perceptions both domestically and internationally.

How Arunachal Pradesh holds strategic importance

The region sits at the eastern edge of the Himalayas and provides India with crucial vantage points along the contested border with China.

Military assessments suggest that the terrain allows India to deploy air defence systems in positions advantageous for responding to potential incursions from the north.

Additionally, the state’s geographical positioning enables India to place advanced missile systems comparatively closer to key Chinese military bases in Tibet.

If China were to extend control southward into Arunachal Pradesh, Bhutan would find itself squeezed between two stretches of Chinese territory — one to its west (Doklam area) and one to the east — fundamentally altering the regional strategic landscape.

Beyond the military, some analysts view China’s territorial stance as connected to negotiations linked to Aksai Chin, the high-altitude plateau west of Ladakh.

This area has been under Chinese control since the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict.

The theory holds that Beijing may leverage the Arunachal question as a means to pressure India into acknowledging Chinese sovereignty over Aksai Chin — something New Delhi has consistently refused.

How New Delhi and Beijing have responded

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal delivered a pointed reminder of India’s long-standing and unequivocal position on the latest matter, stating, “Arunachal Pradesh is an integral and inalienable part of India, and this is a self-evident fact. No amount of denial by the Chinese side is going to change this indisputable reality.”

He added that India had issued formal protests in both Beijing and New Delhi. The MEA criticised the treatment of the Indian passenger and called it inconsistent with accepted international norms.

The government argued that China’s actions contradicted global standards laid out under the Chicago and Montreal Conventions, which dictate rules for civil aviation and the movement of passengers across international borders.

Jaiswal also observed that China had disregarded its own posted guidelines by refusing a transit that should have been allowed for up to 24 hours.

MEA described the incident as indefensible, noting that “Chinese authorities have still not been able to explain their actions, which are in violation of several conventions governing international air travel.”

On the other side, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning stated that officials at the airport had acted in accordance with Chinese laws and insisted no wrongdoing had occurred.

Mao said the passenger “was not subjected to any compulsory measures, detainment or harassment,” adding that the airline had provided “food, water, and a place to rest.”

Mao then reiterated Beijing’s territorial claim, “Zangnan is China’s territory. China never acknowledged the so-called Arunachal Pradesh illegally set up by India.”

With inputs from agencies