India has once again firmly rejected China’s latest move to rename locations in Arunachal Pradesh, calling it a “vain and preposterous” attempt to assert territorial claims that hold no legitimacy under international law. This strong rebuttal comes after China's Civil Aviation Ministry released a new list on May 11–12, renaming 27 locations in the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh — an area that Beijing refers to as "Zangnan", or “South Tibet.”
What China Did:
-
Released a fresh list of 27 renamed locations in Arunachal Pradesh.
-
Shared detailed coordinates, high-resolution maps, and names covering:
-
Mountains (12)
-
Rivers (4)
-
Residential areas (11)
-
One lake, one mountain pass, and a piece of land
-
This follows China’s earlier renaming attempts:
-
2017: 6 places
-
2021: 15 places
-
2023: 11 places
-
April 2024: 30 places
-
May 2025: 27 new places (latest move)
India’s Official Stand:
In a strong statement issued on May 13, 2025, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said:
“We have noticed that China has persisted with its vain and preposterous attempts to name places in the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. Consistent with our principled position, we reject such attempts categorically. Creative naming will not alter the undeniable reality that Arunachal Pradesh was, is, and will always remain an integral and inalienable part of India.”
Why This Matters:
-
Diplomatic Messaging: These symbolic actions by China aim to bolster its territorial claims amid the India-China boundary dispute along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
-
India’s Consistency: New Delhi has consistently dismissed these attempts as unilateral and illegitimate, emphasizing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India.
-
Pattern of Provocation: Experts view this as part of China’s broader strategy to normalize its claims through cartographic aggression and psychological warfare — renaming places to gradually assert de facto control.
-
Geostrategic Context: Arunachal Pradesh holds strategic and emotional significance for India, not only due to its location but also its cultural and civilizational links. In contrast, China’s claim is rooted in its assertion of Tibet-related historical influence, which India does not recognize.
Conclusion:
India’s rejection underscores that territorial integrity cannot be altered by renaming on maps or pushing a narrative through state media. The MEA's statement reflects New Delhi’s unwavering stance that Arunachal Pradesh is and will always remain Indian territory, regardless of China’s repeated symbolic assertions. With tensions between the two Asian powers continuing to simmer, especially after the Galwan clash in 2020, such provocations are likely to receive strong and immediate rebuttals from India going forward.
