Experts say maps matter, but keeping frontier villages inhabited remains the bigger challenge.
India has formally identified 27 places and geographical features in Arunachal Pradesh by their standard Indian names on the official Survey of India map of the state, in a clear response to China’s continued attempts to rename places in the state. The move was made on Friday, with the government saying the formal identification was aimed “at facilitating their accurate recognition and better awareness among the public at large.” The list includes places of historical and strategic importance. These include Long Ju, the site of one of the earliest India-China border confrontations in 1959, and nearby Maja village in Upper Subansiri district. The list also includes the high-altitude passes of Bisa, Dzo La, Riza La, Pukur La and Thag La. Thag La was the scene of one of the opening battles of the 1962 war. Other places include Jairampur in Changlang district, an important logistics hub, along with Sambho Sarovar, Jaswant Garh, the Sher-e-Thapa Memorial and several settlements in eastern Arunachal. China’s Ministry of Civil Affairs has issued successive lists of “standardised names” for places in what it calls Zangnan.
It issued six names in 2017, fifteen in 2021 and eleven in 2023. New Delhi has repeatedly rejected these exercises as “vain and preposterous”. India has maintained that such “fictitious names” cannot change the “undeniable” reality that Arunachal Pradesh was, is and will remain an integral part of India. Friday’s move is the latest and most concrete expression of that position.
However, maps alone do not settle contested frontiers. Speaking exclusively to The Sunday Guardian, senior journalist from Arunachal Pradesh Ranju Dodum said ordinary people living along the border remain focused mainly on supporting their families, securing livelihoods and accessing basic services. The strategic moves of two nuclear-armed neighbours, he said, are often distant from their daily concerns. “Renaming is a political and geopolitical posture,” Dodum said. “It has no practical benefit or direct negative impact on the daily lives of the local population.” Dodum, however, also acknowledged reports from villagers about People’s Liberation Army inroads and temporary camps in certain sectors. He said the situation becomes more vulnerable when families leave remote villages in search of schools, hospitals and administrative facilities. The emptying of villages can create greater space for external presence. In this context, Dodum stressed the importance of the Vibrant Villages Programme and similar initiatives aimed at reversing out-migration by improving infrastructure and economic opportunities.
Local inhabitants, he said, remain “the first guardians” of the land because of their history, culture and lived experience. Their continued presence, he noted, is a form of sovereignty that no map can fully replace. Asked about the wider strategic implications of China’s renaming campaign, Dodum said such matters were better left to the Ministry of External Affairs. He also highlighted the need for sustained engagement with people on the ground. Such dialogue, according to him, should go beyond official bilateral talks and reach communities whose lives are directly affected by the border. The formal mapping of the 27 sites serves several purposes. For the Indian public, it provides an authoritative record of the names of those places and counters Beijing’s parallel cartography. For the international community, it signals that New Delhi will not allow administrative inaction to create space for Chinese claims. For Arunachal Pradesh residents, it is also a reminder that the state is paying attention. But attention alone cannot keep villages inhabited or passes secure. History adds further importance to the locations included in the map. Long Ju and Thag La are places where Indian and Chinese forces once clashed, with the consequences of miscalculation becoming lethal. Jairampur continues to be a vital logistics node supporting movement towards both the eastern border and the Myanmar frontier.
Memorials such as Jaswant Garh and the Sher-e-Thapa Memorial preserve the memory of individual sacrifice. By officially naming these sites, India is not only correcting maps. It is also asserting that its military, administrative and human presence cannot be overwritten by a decision from Beijing. Whether the move will influence Chinese behaviour remains an open question. Beijing has shown little inclination to abandon its claim to Arunachal Pradesh. Its periodic renaming lists appear designed more for domestic signalling and long-term narrative building than for immediate negotiation. India, meanwhile, has chosen to respond through maps, names and public awareness while continuing to invest in the physical and social infrastructure of the frontier. The dispute over names is only one part of the larger and more complex border issue. The bigger test lies in whether people living closest to the Line of Actual Control feel secure enough to remain in their villages. As Ranju Dodum pointed out, that security is measured not only through diplomatic communiqués but also through functioning schools, connecting roads and villages that remain inhabited.
