The 2020 India-China LAC crisis in Ladakh is arguably New Delhi’s “biggest strategic and security challenge in decades.” 20 Indian soldiers were killed by PLA forces wielding iron rods, clubs wrapped in barbed wire, and sticks studded with nails on the night of 15 June. The Indian forces were overseeing a negotiated “de-escalation” in one section of the around 40-60 square km of territory which China has progressively occupied since at least May. This “de-escalation” turned out to be a ploy for the Chinese assault. If the Chinese occupation is allowed to stand, this will not only entail India publicly accepting Beijing’s land grab as a fait accompli, but also cut off Indian lifelines between its border posts. Moreover, it will grant the PLA a commanding position overlooking the Indian Darbuk-Shyok-Daulat Beg Oldie road, critical for strategic purposes.
The first option available to Modi is to militarily force the Chinese forces back to the 1962 LAC claim line, which Beijing has historically de facto recognised in its patrol operations, albeit not de jure. The casualty rate of such an offensive would be very high, and raise escalation concerns, not least as China “believes it needs to stand up to India whatever the cost.” However, based upon a recent comprehensive estimate of major Indian and Chinese combat forces in their ground border areas, it is likely that India would eventually succeed in this effort, even with the new forces that China has moved closer to the border. India still retains the core advantage that more of its China-facing combat forces are located closer to border areas than vice versa. An additional — or simultaneous — option would be for India to open a new front by moving out of Arunachal Pradesh to seize Chinese territory in the eastern sector, strengthening New Delhi’s bargaining position in compelling Chinese withdrawal.
However, it appears more likely at present that Modi will seek to avoid further clashes against the Chinese occupying forces, and play for time in eventually securing a negotiated Chinese withdrawal later in the year. A global diplomatic campaign to damage China’s international image, including regularly briefing scores of foreign ambassadors on the nature of the incursion and of China’s brutality against Indian forces, could raise the political costs of Beijing’s actions. This could also include utilising India’s scheduled hosting of the 2021 BRICS summit to pressure China. Modi can publicly state that at present, he cannot see how he could invite China to attend if it is occupying Indian territory. India reportedly used the China-hosted 2017 BRICS summit as similar leverage in ending the Doklam crisis, threatening China’s public embarrassment by India’s non-attendance without prior resolution of the crisis.
Read the full article in ORF.
South Asia
Share:
This article was originally published by the Observer Research Foundation.
The 2020 India-China LAC crisis in Ladakh is arguably New Delhi’s “biggest strategic and security challenge in decades.” 20 Indian soldiers were killed by PLA forces wielding iron rods, clubs wrapped in barbed wire, and sticks studded with nails on the night of 15 June. The Indian forces were overseeing a negotiated “de-escalation” in one section of the around 40-60 square km of territory which China has progressively occupied since at least May. This “de-escalation” turned out to be a ploy for the Chinese assault. If the Chinese occupation is allowed to stand, this will not only entail India publicly accepting Beijing’s land grab as a fait accompli, but also cut off Indian lifelines between its border posts. Moreover, it will grant the PLA a commanding position overlooking the Indian Darbuk-Shyok-Daulat Beg Oldie road, critical for strategic purposes.
The first option available to Modi is to militarily force the Chinese forces back to the 1962 LAC claim line, which Beijing has historically de facto recognised in its patrol operations, albeit not de jure. The casualty rate of such an offensive would be very high, and raise escalation concerns, not least as China “believes it needs to stand up to India whatever the cost.” However, based upon a recent comprehensive estimate of major Indian and Chinese combat forces in their ground border areas, it is likely that India would eventually succeed in this effort, even with the new forces that China has moved closer to the border. India still retains the core advantage that more of its China-facing combat forces are located closer to border areas than vice versa. An additional — or simultaneous — option would be for India to open a new front by moving out of Arunachal Pradesh to seize Chinese territory in the eastern sector, strengthening New Delhi’s bargaining position in compelling Chinese withdrawal.
However, it appears more likely at present that Modi will seek to avoid further clashes against the Chinese occupying forces, and play for time in eventually securing a negotiated Chinese withdrawal later in the year. A global diplomatic campaign to damage China’s international image, including regularly briefing scores of foreign ambassadors on the nature of the incursion and of China’s brutality against Indian forces, could raise the political costs of Beijing’s actions. This could also include utilising India’s scheduled hosting of the 2021 BRICS summit to pressure China. Modi can publicly state that at present, he cannot see how he could invite China to attend if it is occupying Indian territory. India reportedly used the China-hosted 2017 BRICS summit as similar leverage in ending the Doklam crisis, threatening China’s public embarrassment by India’s non-attendance without prior resolution of the crisis.
Read the full article in ORF.
Recent & Related
Tripoli’s New Leverage: How the American Initiative Changed the Rules of Negotiation
America’s Chip Future Still Runs Through Taiwan
Postwar, Iran Is at a Crossroads
When Formal Alliances Stop Doing Political Work: The Canada-US Alliance in Crisis
Post-War Street Rallies in Iran: The Ascendance of Religious over National Identity
The Next Iran Nuclear Deal: Lessons from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and North Korea
The Negative Strategic Consequences of the US-Iran War for Iraq
What OCHA’s 87 Million Lives Campaign Reveals About the Future of UN Leadership
What The Iran War Reveals About Airpower
The Status of Transitional Justice in Syria
Iran-Qatar Electricity Grid Interconnection Plan Shows Pragmatism in the Shadow of War
North Africa Regional Outlook: June 17, 2026
การทำเหมืองแร่โดยไม่ได้รับการควบคุมตามแนวแม่น้ำในแผ่นดินใหญ่ของเอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้
ການຂຸດຄົ້ນ-ປຸງແຕ່ງແຮ່ທີ່ບໍ່ຖືກຕ້ອງ ຢູ່ຕາມແມ່ນໍ້າສາຍຕ່າງໆ ຢູ່ແຜ່ນດິນໃຫຍ່ອາຊີຕາເວັນອອກສຽງໃຕ້ Unregulated Mining Along Rivers in Mainland Southeast Asia (Lao Language)
Current Geopolitics Shift Deep-Sea Mining Debates
Navigating Seabed Mining in the Cook Islands: A Conversation with John Parianos
การทำเหมืองแร่โดยไม่ได้รับการควบคุมตามแนวแม่น้ำในแผ่นดินใหญ่ของเอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้
Mining in Mainland Southeast Asia – River Basins Dashboard
Unregulated Mining Along Rivers in Mainland Southeast Asia
Trump’s Critical Minerals Search in Africa Won’t Tip the Scales Against China
Breaking Silos to Beat Scams: Why Holistic Law Enforcement Matters
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Violence Against Women and Girls
Find an Expert
Home to more than 100 scholars and global affiliates, the Stimson Center is proud to be a magnet for the world’s leading experts on the most pressing foreign policy and national security issues of our time. Explore our experts and their work.