Revision summary
The core file is an unsettled Himalayan boundary. Doklam 2017 and Galwan 2020 are the named recent crises. CPEC through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is a sovereignty and two-front issue. The Indian Ocean and South Asian projects extend the contest beyond the ridge. Status in the UN and Asian clubs is the diplomatic layer of the same rivalry.
Model answer
Copper italics in this answer — like this — are the key facts. Each one is unpacked in the Facts & figures rail.
Introduction
India and China share a long disputed Himalayan frontier and a crowded Asian order. Geostrategic contention is territorial, maritime, and institutional. Doklam and Galwan are named shocks on a deeper map.
Body
The land frontier
- Unresolved boundary: Aksai Chin, the McMahon Line, and the status of the so-called LAC.
- 1962 war memory structures military planning.
- Doklam 2017: a stand-off at the Bhutan–China–India trijunction, about a road and the Siliguri corridor’s depth.
- Galwan 2020: lethal clash in eastern Ladakh that ended a long political pretence of managed peace.
The Pakistan and Himalayan wedge
- China–Pakistan strategic tie and the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
- India reads CPEC as a sovereignty and two-front problem, not only a trade road.
The maritime and neighbourhood ring
- Indian Ocean dual-use ports, submarine visits, and a growing PLA Navy.
- Influence in Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Bangladesh through finance and projects.
- Tibet and the Dalai Lama remain a political-security residue of 1950s incorporation.
Order and status
- China’s rise, as Waltz would count capability, shrinks India’s room in Asia.
- UN Security Council permanent membership, NSG, and Asian institutions are status contests.
- The Quad and Act East are Indian replies, not the cause of the border file.
What is not the whole story
- Trade remains large. Contention is geostrategic even when shops are full.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD B[Boundary LAC] --> D[Doklam 2017] B --> G[Galwan 2020] CPEC[CPEC PoK] --> T[Two-front fear] IOR[Indian Ocean] --> T D --> GS[Geostrategic contention] G[G] --> GS[GS] T[T] --> GS[GS]
Conclusion
Points of contention are the boundary (Doklam, Galwan, Aksai Chin, Arunachal), the China–Pakistan corridor, the Indian Ocean, and status in Asian and UN order. Interdependence in trade has not dissolved the security dilemma.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Is trade a cushion against war?
It raises the cost of rupture. Galwan showed that it does not prevent force on the LAC.
-
Is Tibet still a live contention?
India accepts the Tibet Autonomous Region as part of the PRC in formal notes, yet the refugee community and Himalayan military geography keep it politically sensitive.
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
More from this topic
Q5(e) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks · Solution
Historical ties between India and Japan grew into a 'special strategic and global partnership'. Comment.
India and the Global Centres of Power
India–Japan moved from post-war distance and aid to a Special Strategic and Global Partnership (2014 upgrade). Drivers are China’s rise, FOIP, quality infrastructure and technology. Pillars include the Quad, 2+2, a civil nuclear deal, the bullet-train project and semiconductor talk. Japan finances and manufactures without a U.S.-style treaty bill; India gives FOIP continental scale. Limits: trade deficit, Russia residue, and still-thin military integration.
Q5(b) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks · Solution
Bhutan has historically been an ally of India, but the China-Bhutan border-related issues have become a security issue for India. Discuss.
India and the Global Centres of Power
Bhutan is India’s closest Himalayan partner through treaty history, hydropower and military training. China–Bhutan boundary talks and Chinese construction at Doklam in 2017 made the trijunction an Indian military crisis. The Siliguri corridor and the LAC context turn Bhutan’s western sector into Indian strategic depth. Sakteng and possible China–Bhutan diplomatic normalisation add political pressure. India must back Bhutanese sovereignty without treating the trijunction as a purely bilateral China–Bhutan file.
Q4(a) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks · Solution
"The Gramscian theory of hegemony provides many valuable insights into the nature of global power." Comment.
India and the Global Centres of Power
Gramsci’s hegemony is leadership through consent in civil society, backed by coercion, organised in a historic bloc. Cox applied this to world order: Pax Americana as material power plus institutions and ideas. Insights: global power includes WTO rules, culture and elite consent, not only armies; resistance includes counter-hegemonic ideas. NATO and liberal order are hegemonic tools in this sense. Limits: still need Waltz on anarchy and Wallerstein on the world-economy; the term must not mean every cultural flow.