The meeting on December 18, 2024, between India’s National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing, marked a cautious step toward normalizing relations between the two nations. As the 23rd meeting of the Special Representatives on border issues, it carried significant weight in light of the history and challenges that have long plagued India-China relations.
This dialogue came after a hiatus of nearly five years, the last meeting being held in December 2019. In the intervening period, the violent Galwan clashes of 2020 severely disrupted communication, derailed confidence-building measures (CBMs), and led to a prolonged military standoff. While the December 18 meeting reflects a thaw in relations, the path forward remains fraught with complexities.
The year 2025 marks the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between India and China, but the border dispute remains unresolved despite decades of discussions. The fragile nature of CBMs was starkly highlighted during the Galwan clashes, which underscored the volatility of the border situation. The violent confrontation not only resulted in casualties on both sides but also brought bilateral relations to their lowest point in decades.
The December meeting followed the October resolution on patrolling at the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which eased tensions to some extent. However, these developments cannot overshadow the deeply entrenched mistrust and unresolved issues that persist.
Beijing’s insistence on delinking the border issue from broader bilateral relations is a contentious stance. Historically, China has leveraged this approach to normalize ties while sidestepping substantive discussions on the border dispute. Since the re-establishment of bilateral relations in 1988, the two sides have maintained that the dispute would be resolved “at an appropriate time.” However, repeated Chinese violations of CBMs—including incidents at Depsang in 2013, Chumar in 2014, and Doklam in 2017—demonstrate Beijing’s pattern of aggressive behavior, undermining the very measures intended to maintain peace.
The December 18 meeting was significant for several reasons, including the discussions on various areas of cooperation and the Chinese release of a “six-point consensus.” While this framework reflects some positive momentum, India has expressed reservations about accepting it in its entirety. The absence of a joint statement at the conclusion of the meeting further highlights the lingering gaps in mutual understanding.
A Chinese foreign ministry statement described the need for any border resolution to be “fair, reasonable, and acceptable to both sides.” It emphasized maintaining peace and stability in border areas while promoting broader bilateral relations. Yet, Beijing’s lack of clarity on what constitutes an “appropriate position” for the border issue fuels skepticism.
China’s continued cartographic aggression—such as publishing maps that claim Indian territories as part of China—and its opposition to India’s infrastructure projects along the LAC remain serious irritants. Furthermore, Beijing’s post-Galwan push for normalizing relations without resolving the core dispute is seen by many in New Delhi as an attempt to sideline the issue while solidifying its military and infrastructure advantages in contested areas.
India, for its part, has reiterated its commitment to finding a “fair, mutually acceptable framework for boundary settlement.” External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s statements in Parliament reflect India’s cautious approach, emphasizing the need to resolve the border dispute as a prerequisite for full normalization of ties.
However, India’s resistance to China’s push for resuming direct flights between the two countries signals its reluctance to return to pre-Galwan engagement levels without substantive progress on the border issue. This stance underscores New Delhi’s recognition that sustainable bilateral relations depend on addressing the root causes of mistrust rather than merely managing its symptoms.
Despite the challenges, there are positive developments that offer a glimmer of hope for improved relations. During his visit to Beijing, Ajit Doval met Chinese Vice President Han Zheng and extended an invitation to Wang Yi for the next Special Representatives’ meeting in India, scheduled for 2025. The potential for high-level engagement, including a possible visit by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to China for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, could foster momentum for dialogue.
The December meeting also covered topics such as border trade, trans-border river data sharing, and the resumption of the Kailash-Mansarovar Yatra, a pilgrimage route suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic. These discussions reflect a mutual recognition of the benefits of cooperation in areas beyond the border dispute.
Trade relations, in particular, have remained robust despite the ongoing tensions. This resilience suggests that economic interdependence could serve as a stabilizing factor in the bilateral relationship, provided both sides are willing to engage constructively on contentious issues.
For India and China to achieve meaningful progress in their relationship, the border issue must remain central to diplomatic interactions. History has shown that attempts to sideline or delay discussions on this matter only exacerbate tensions in the long run. New Delhi, in particular, must adopt a proactive and assertive approach to negotiations, ensuring that Beijing does not control the narrative or dictate the terms of engagement.
The year 2025 offers a unique opportunity for both nations to reset their relationship as they commemorate 75 years of diplomatic ties. However, this milestone will hold little significance unless accompanied by tangible progress on the border issue. Both sides must prioritize trust-building measures, transparency, and a willingness to engage in honest and difficult conversations.
The December 18 meeting, while an important step, serves as a reminder of the long road ahead. As India and China navigate the complexities of their relationship, their ability to address the border dispute will determine whether they can transform this moment of cautious optimism into a foundation for lasting peace and stability.
