India has formally identified 27 places and geographical features in Arunachal Pradesh using their standard Indian names, triggering a sharp response from China and adding another layer to the long-running territorial dispute between the two countries.
The move, announced by the Ministry of Home Affairs on August 7, comes after years of Beijing assigning its own names to places in Arunachal Pradesh, which China calls “Zangnan” or “South Tibet”.
New Delhi has consistently rejected China’s territorial claims over Arunachal Pradesh, maintaining that the northeastern state is an integral and inalienable part of India.
The new exercise involves placing the Indian names of the locations on official Survey of India maps. The government says the standardisation is intended to ensure accurate geographical identification, eliminate ambiguity and establish a uniform reference system for official maps and government records.
But the locations involved and the current boundary dispute between India and China mean that the decision is much more than cartography.
What are the 27 places India has named?
The 27 locations include settlements, localities, mountain passes, a high-altitude lake and a military memorial.
The 21 settlements and localities are Longju, Maja, Bisa, Bara Kundun, Chhota Kundun, Dhan Bari, Pritnagar, Buddhamandir, Jairampur, Teritnagar, Ramnagar, Jaswant Garh, Sagar, Padma, Jyotinagar, Baisakhi, Chhota Ropuk, Bara Ropuk, Shivaji Nagar and Kamlang Nagar.
Four mountain passes have been identified, namely Dzo La, Riza La, Pukur La, and Thag La. Sambho Sarovar and the Sher-e-Thapa Memorial are also included in the list.
Several of these locations are of historical and strategic significance.
Jaswant Garh is also related to Rifleman Jaswant Singh Rawat, an Indian soldier in the 1962 India-China war (Nuranang Battle). The memorial is located on the route towards Tawang, and it mentions his service during the war.
The Sher-e-Thapa Memorial also honours Havildar Shere Thapa of the 2nd Battalion, Jammu & Kashmir Rifles. He and his men are remembered for fighting against the Chinese troops in the 1962 war.
Thag La is another historically significant place. The high-altitude pass was the scene of an important battle at the beginning of the 1962 India-China war.
Jairampur is located in Changlang district and is of strategic importance as it is connected to eastern Arunachal Pradesh and the Myanmar border.
The list thus combines ordinary settlements with locations that have military, historical and strategic significance.
Why is China angry?
China has strongly objected to India’s decision.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said India's approach to replacing names used by China with what Beijing calls India's “so-called standard names” is “illegal, null and void”.
Beijing maintained its claim over the area it calls Zangnan or South Tibet.
China has been conducting a naming campaign in Arunachal Pradesh for years. Since 2017, Beijing has been issuing lists of Chinese names for places in the Indian state, and has been using it in its overall bid to promote Chinese territorial claims.
India has repeatedly dismissed those naming exercises, arguing that changing geographical names cannot alter sovereignty and the reality of administration on the ground.
Why do names affect a border dispute?
Maps and geographical terminology can have great political and administrative importance in a territorial dispute.
Official maps are used for governance, infrastructure development, security planning, disaster management, public administration and government records. To ensure consistency across these functions, standard names are established.
India's latest move therefore strengthens the country's official cartographic record of Arunachal Pradesh.
At the same time, the exercise does not physically alter the Line of Actual Control (LAC), nor does it resolve the wider India-China boundary dispute.
Instead, it further serves to solidify India's administrative position with formal documentation.
Arunachal Pradesh At The Centre Of The Dispute
Arunachal Pradesh remains one of the most sensitive sectors of the India-China border.
India administers Arunachal Pradesh as a full-fledged state with an elected government, civilian population, administrative institutions and extensive infrastructure.
China claims large parts of the state and refers to it as South Tibet. The dispute is closely linked to the McMahon Line, which India recognises as the basis of the boundary in the eastern sector. China does not accept the McMahon Line as a legitimate international boundary.
Even decades of diplomatic negotiations have not made progress
The issue has become even more important after the 2020 military crisis between India and China in eastern Ladakh. While both sides have held diplomatic and military talks and achieved some de-escalation at various points, the issue of the boundary remains unresolved.
In this context of this, developments in Arunachal Pradesh are closely watched both in New Delhi and Beijing.
From military posts to maps
The naming has shown that the India-China border dispute extends beyond military deployments and patrols.
The two countries are also competing in infrastructure development, diplomatic statements, historical narratives, maps and official terminology.
China’s naming exercises have been intended to reinforce its claim over Arunachal Pradesh. India’s decision to formally standardise the Indian names of 27 locations also reinforces its own administrative and cartographic position.
The significance of the latest move is therefore symbolic as well as administrative.
The names are linked to Indian military history, strategically important mountain passes, settlements and geographical features. Combined, they provide a snapshot of the complex nature of the region.
What Do the 27 Names Really Mean?
India's formal naming of the 27 locations does not change the physical alignment of the LAC or settle the boundary dispute with China.
What it does is establish a clearer and more consistent Indian record of locations within a territory administered by India.
For New Delhi, the message is straightforward: Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India, and attempts by another country to rename locations in the state cannot alter that status.
For Beijing, however, the issue is part of a larger effort to assert its territorial claim on the region.
The latest development, therefore, represents another chapter in a battle fought not only on the ground but also through diplomacy, maps, historical narratives, and terminology.
In this sense, India’s 27-name exercise is less about changing the territory itself and more about reinforcing how India officially records, administers and represents the territory it governs.
