Between Silence and Assertion: India’s Uneven Voice on China

The paradox of India’s China policy today lies in the contrast between the assertive declarations of state leaders and the studied silence of the central government. When the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, belonging to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, declared that his state is “always an integral part of India,” he was not merely speaking for his people but stepping into the domain of national sovereignty. His words carried ceremonial weight, countering Beijing’s repeated claims that Arunachal is part of “South Tibet.” Yet, this assertion raises a deeper question: why should a state leader be the one to articulate India’s territorial integrity when the Prime Minister and External Affairs Minister refrain from doing so in their dialogues with the Chinese President?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has met Xi Jinping multiple times in forums such as Asian summits. Most recently, he attended the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit in Tianjin, China (August 31–September 1, 2025), marking his first visit to China in seven years. In that summit, Modi and Xi held a bilateral meeting, reaffirming cooperation and stressing that differences should not become disputes. This was their only meeting in the last seven months, the previous one being in October 2024 at the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia. Agreements were expected to be signed, symbolizing a convergence of interests in resisting Western monopoly and asserting Asian solidarity. Yet, conspicuously absent from these dialogues was a clear articulation of India’s position on the map disputes, particularly regarding Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh. This omission is not merely diplomatic discretion; it is a silence that reverberates domestically, leaving citizens to wonder why sovereignty issues are not foregrounded in international negotiations.

The External Affairs Minister’s silence compounds this perception. In a system where foreign policy is the prerogative of the central government, the absence of strong statements on territorial disputes contrasts sharply with the assertive language of a state chief minister. The Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, though constitutionally a captain administrator of his state, has stepped into the domain of national sovereignty. His words carry symbolic weight, but they also expose a gap: why should a state leader be the one to articulate India’s territorial integrity when the central leadership refrains from doing so? This inversion of roles challenges the conventional hierarchy of governance and raises questions about the delegation of authority in matters of external affairs and border security.

The situation in Ladakh further complicates this narrative. Local voices, such as Sonam Wangchuk, have raised alarms about Chinese encroachments on Ladakhi land. Instead of amplifying these concerns, the administration responded with arrests and restrictions, silencing dissent rather than addressing the substance of the claims. The Lieutenant Governor of Ladakh, unlike the Chief Minister of Arunachal, has not issued strong statements defending territorial integrity. This asymmetry—assertion in Arunachal, silence in Ladakh—suggests that India’s administrative machinery applies different parameters to similar issues, undermining the principle of one law, one nation.

From a geopolitical perspective, India’s silence at the highest levels may be interpreted as strategic restraint. In the calculus of international relations, overt confrontation with China could jeopardize trade negotiations, regional stability, and India’s broader positioning in the multipolar world. By avoiding direct mention of map disputes, the Prime Minister may be seeking to preserve diplomatic space for cooperation against Western dominance. Yet, this strategy carries domestic costs. Citizens perceive silence as weakness, and the absence of clear articulation fuels suspicion that sovereignty is being compromised for economic or geopolitical gains.

Data on border incidents underscores the urgency of these concerns. Reports of Chinese incursions across the Line of Actual Control in Ladakh have increased in recent years, with satellite imagery and ground reports documenting infrastructure buildup on the Chinese side. In Arunachal Pradesh, Chinese maps continue to depict the state as part of “South Tibet,” and incidents such as the detention of Arunachali travelers at foreign airports highlight the practical consequences of these claims. These realities demand a coherent national response, not fragmented assertions from state leaders.

Domestically, the uneven distribution of voices—assertive in Arunachal, muted in Ladakh—creates a perception of selective sovereignty. Citizens in Ladakh question why their concerns are met with suppression, while Arunachal’s identity is ceremonially defended. This inconsistency undermines trust in the central government’s commitment to territorial integrity. It also raises broader questions about the role of federalism in foreign policy: should state leaders have the autonomy to speak on matters of national sovereignty, or should such pronouncements remain the exclusive domain of the central government?

The administrative style of the current government, blending centralized control with selective delegation, appears to be producing contradictions. While the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh is celebrated for his assertion, the silence of the Prime Minister and External Affairs Minister creates a vacuum at the national level. This duality reflects a broader tension in India’s governance: the desire to project strength internationally while managing domestic dissent through restraint or suppression. The arrest of Ladakhi voices exemplifies this tension, revealing a preference for administrative control over open dialogue.

At the end of the day, the story of Arunachal and Ladakh is not merely about territorial disputes; it is about the coherence of India’s administrative and geopolitical voice. The uneven distribution of assertion and silence raises fundamental questions about sovereignty, federalism, and the balance between diplomacy and domestic accountability. If India seeks to position itself as a leader in resisting Western hegemony, it must first resolve the contradictions within its own governance. Sovereignty cannot be selectively asserted; it must be uniformly defended. The pride of a chief minister’s statement is diminished if the central leadership remains silent. The arrest of Ladakhi voices is a warning that administrative control cannot substitute for national clarity. India’s strength lies not in fragmented assertions but in a unified, coherent articulation of its territorial integrity and geopolitical vision.