The media was recently abuzz with the ordeal of Prema Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh who was stopped by Chinese immigration at Shanghai Airport and subjected to verbal intimidation for 18 hours. India issued a strong demarche, denouncing the incident as harassment and a violation of international aviation norms. Yet amid the justifiable outrage, the national conversation missed its most consequential signal — what China officially said about the episode.
At the Chinese ministry of foreign affairs press conference on November 25, 2025, spokesperson Mao Ning did not seek ambiguity or nuance. Her statement was direct:
“Zangnan is China’s territory. The Chinese side has never recognised the so-called ‘Arunachal Pradesh’ illegally set up by India.”
This is the crux of the matter. The Shanghai airport incident was not an isolated act by immigration staff. It was a direct operational consequence of Beijing’s official territorial position, reinforced publicly and bureaucratically over years.
For India — which exercises full political, administrative, and democratic control over Arunachal Pradesh — the state’s status is unquestioned. Its residents elect Members of Parliament, its infrastructure grows rapidly, and its position as Indian territory is uncontested by any nation except China. Yet Beijing has invested decades in constructing a parallel narrative — that Arunachal Pradesh is “South Tibet,” historically under Tibetan authority before colonial powers drew the McMahon Line in 1914.
India sees Arunachal Pradesh as a settled fact — a sovereign, democratic state with uninterrupted administration, elected representation, infrastructure development, and a distinct cultural identity rooted in the Indian Union. For China, the region is Zangnan, part of Tibet. Beijing rejects the McMahon Line and has been institutionalising its counterclaim through a multidimensional campaign that extends far beyond diplomatic speeches.
{{/usCountry}}India sees Arunachal Pradesh as a settled fact — a sovereign, democratic state with uninterrupted administration, elected representation, infrastructure development, and a distinct cultural identity rooted in the Indian Union. For China, the region is Zangnan, part of Tibet. Beijing rejects the McMahon Line and has been institutionalising its counterclaim through a multidimensional campaign that extends far beyond diplomatic speeches.
{{/usCountry}}It includes issuing new maps, standardised renaming of villages, mountains, rivers, and other geographical features — a cumulative total of 89 places by 2025 — along with the long-running practice of issuing “stapled visas” to residents of Arunachal Pradesh. Each of these acts attempts to normalise China’s territorial claim domestically and internationally, amounting to a slow, deliberate rewriting of reality.
Against that backdrop, Prema Thongdok was treated not as an Indian citizen, but as someone Beijing considers legally Chinese. Her humiliation was not random; it was the tactical application of China’s claim to an individual. India rightly condemned the incident, but popular outrage has largely overlooked its significance in the context of China’s long-term strategy. Territorial disputes today extend beyond borders into identity and documentation.
If an Arunachal-born Indian is denied recognition as Indian abroad even once, Beijing registers that as reinforcement of its claim. If the same happens repeatedly, it becomes rhetoric backed by precedent. India rightly condemned the incident and defended the rights of one of its citizens. But in disputes built on narrative persistence, reacting after the fact is not enough. China does not need to win the legal argument to complicate the lived reality of Arunachal residents — it only needs to seed ambiguity wherever possible.
Meanwhile, India’s debate rarely acknowledges that Beijing’s claim is operationalised, not merely proclaimed. China’s military posture has intensified since 2020, with recurring PLA incursions and rapid infrastructure expansion opposite Arunachal. It has calculated that its citizens and institutions must never deviate from the claim. India, by contrast, engages the issue mostly during military flare-ups or diplomatic talks. One side asserts its position constantly; the other episodically.
Through all this, the human dimension is at risk of becoming collateral. Thongdok was a traveller, yet she faced humiliation, financial loss, and trauma — a reminder that residents of Arunachal or other border regions may have their identity contested not only by a neighbour but by systems that internalise competing narratives. Disputes are fought not just across mountains, but through immigration counters, visas, and perception.
India must respond with clarity and consistency, not escalation. Arunachal Pradesh is home to citizens whose identity and dignity are unquestionable. It is legally, culturally, politically, and historically part of India. Defending this fact globally must be continuous.
China has shifted its territorial claim from maps to lived experience. India must assert its sovereignty not only at the border, but also through diplomacy, global communication, and national resolve.
This article is authored by Hriday Sarma, senior fellow, South Asia Democratic Forum, Brussels.