India’s Perception Of China: Rhetoric Of Rapprochement, Reality Of Repression – OpEd
India’s claim that relations with China are “improving,” as recently stated by the Indian Army Chief, collapses under the weight of facts emerging from the ground. The detention of Chinese national Liu Qunjing on November 24, 2025, along the India–Nepal border is not an isolated security incident; it is part of a clear, sustained pattern that exposes New Delhi’s duplicity. While India projects an image of diplomatic stabilization with Beijing, its actions reflect deep mistrust, aggressive surveillance, and a willingness to instrumentalize security narratives for political and strategic ends.
According to Indian media reports, Liu Qunjing, a 49-year-old Chinese citizen from Hunan province, was detained at the Rupaidiha checkpost in Uttar Pradesh after allegedly entering India illegally from Nepal. Indian authorities claimed he was videographing “sensitive border areas” and was carrying currencies from Pakistan, China, and Nepal. Predictably, the incident was framed as a major security breach, feeding into India’s long-standing narrative of Chinese “intrusions” and covert activities. However, when placed in broader context, the case raises more questions about India’s intent than about any alleged wrongdoing by the individual.
What makes this episode particularly revealing is its timing. The Indian Army Chief’s assertion that India-China relations have improved was meant to signal de-escalation after years of military standoffs and diplomatic tension following the 2020 Ladakh crisis. Yet, the arrest of Liu Qunjing, coming alongside a series of similar detentions throughout 2025, directly contradicts this narrative. Stabilized relations are measured not merely by official statements, but by consistent behavior, mutual restraint, and adherence to diplomatic norms—standards India appears unwilling or unable to meet.
The Liu Qunjing case is only the latest in a string of detentions of Chinese nationals, particularly along the porous India–Nepal border. On May 7, 2025, four Chinese citizens were arrested near Raxaul in Bihar, along with two Nepalese guides who were later released. Within days, on May 16, a Chinese national was detained in Delhi over an alleged in-flight theft on an Air India flight. On May 17, another Chinese citizen was arrested in Madhubani, Bihar, under immigration laws. On June 3, yet another detention at Raxaul brought the total number of such arrests to five in a single region. The geographic concentration of these incidents in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh points to heightened surveillance and profiling rather than coincidental security lapses.
This pattern suggests a deliberate policy posture rather than routine law enforcement. Chinese nationals are being subjected to disproportionate scrutiny, detention, and media vilification, even as New Delhi publicly insists that bilateral ties are stabilizing. Such behavior undermines India’s own diplomatic credibility and raises doubts about the sincerity of its engagement with China.
India’s duplicity becomes even more evident when viewed in light of its own protests against China. Recently, Indian authorities objected strongly when Chinese officials at Shanghai Pudong Airport rejected an Indian passport listing Arunachal Pradesh as the holder’s place of birth—a territory claimed by China as South Tibet. India invoked international aviation conventions, including the Chicago and Montreal Conventions, to accuse China of violating norms. Yet, in the same breath, India continues to detain Chinese citizens, publicize unproven allegations, and stretch immigration or security laws to justify actions that clearly antagonize Beijing. This selective invocation of international norms exposes a deeply hypocritical approach.
Moreover, India’s aggressive posture toward Chinese nationals cannot be separated from its broader expansionist and territorial signaling. New Delhi’s continued assertion over Arunachal Pradesh, coupled with the renaming of locations and intensified military infrastructure development, signals a willingness to provoke China while maintaining a diplomatic façade of calm. Harassment of Chinese citizens thus becomes part of a wider strategy: applying pressure through non-military means while avoiding overt escalation.
Far from demonstrating confidence, these actions reflect insecurity. India’s tendency to amplify individual incidents, leak selective details to the media, and frame them as major security threats serves domestic political narratives and reinforces a siege mentality. It also helps justify increased surveillance, tighter border controls, and a hardline China policy, regardless of the diplomatic costs.
In reality, genuine improvement in India-China relations would require restraint, consistency, and mutual respect. Arbitrary detentions, public accusations without transparent investigations, and the targeting of civilians undermine any claim of normalization. They also erode trust at a time when both countries face significant economic and regional challenges that demand cooperation rather than confrontation.
India’s actions in 2025 reveal a troubling pattern of saying one thing and doing another. The rhetoric of improved relations rings hollow when contradicted by aggressive behavior on the ground. Until New Delhi aligns its conduct with its claims, its assertions of stability will remain unconvincing—not only to China, but to the wider international community that is watching closely.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
