Line of Actual Control#LAC of 7 November 1959

The term "line of actual control" is said to have been used by Chinese premier Zhou Enlai in a 1959 note to Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

{{harvp|Hoffmann, India and the China Crisis|1990|loc=p. [https://books.google.com/books?id=_bjADwAAQBAJ&pg=PA80 80]}}

The boundary existed only as an informal cease-fire line between India and China after the 1962 Sino-Indian War. In 1993, India and China agreed to respect of the 'Line of Actual Control' in a bilateral agreement, without demarcating the line itself.

{{cite web |url=http://www.stimson.org/research-pages/agreement-on-the-maintenance-of-peace-along-the-line-of-actual-control-in-the-india-china-border/ |title=Agreement On The Maintenance Of Peace Along The Line Of Actual Control In The India-China Border |author= |website=stimson.org |publisher=The Stimson Center |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924110627/http://www.stimson.org/research-pages/agreement-on-the-maintenance-of-peace-along-the-line-of-actual-control-in-the-india-china-border/ |archive-date=24 September 2015 |url-status=dead }}

In a letter dated 7 November 1959, Zhou proposed to Nehru that the armed forces of the two sides should withdraw 20 kilometres from the so-called McMahon Line in the east and "the line up to which each side exercises actual control in the west".{{sfnp|Hoffmann, India and the China Crisis|1990|p=80}} Nehru rejected the proposal stating that there was complete disagreement between the two governments over the facts of possession:{{harvp|Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground|1963|loc=p. [https://archive.org/details/himalayanbattleg0000unse/page/137/mode/1up 137]}}

{{blockquote|It is obvious that there is complete disagreement between the two Governments even about the facts of possession. An agreement about the observance of the status quo would, therefore, be meaningless as the facts concerning the status quo are themselves disputed.}}

Scholar Stephen Hoffmann states that Nehru was determined not to grant legitimacy to a concept that had no historical validity nor represented the situation on the ground.{{sfnp|Hoffmann, India and the China Crisis|1990|p=80}}

During the Sino-Indian War (1962), Nehru again refused to recognise the line of control: "There is no sense or meaning in the Chinese offer to withdraw twenty kilometers from what they call 'line of actual control'. What is this 'line of control'? Is this the line they have created by aggression since the beginning of September? Advancing forty or sixty kilometers by blatant military aggression and offering to withdraw twenty kilometers provided both sides do this is a deceptive device which can fool nobody."

{{cite web |url=http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm |title=India's China War |last=Maxwell |first=Neville |year=1999 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080822215146/http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm |archive-date=22 August 2008 |url-status=dead }}

Zhou responded that the LAC was "basically still the line of actual control as existed between the Chinese and Indian sides on 7 November 1959. To put it concretely, in the eastern sector it coincides in the main with the so-called McMahon Line, and in the western and middle sectors it coincides in the main with the traditional customary line which has consistently been pointed out by China."

{{cite web |author=J. C. K. |title=Chou's Latest Proposals |date=1962 |url=http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/10-3-106.shtml |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717201203/http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/10-3-106.shtml |archive-date=17 July 2011 |via=Blinken Open Society Archives}}

{{sfnp|Menon, Choices|2016|p=Chapter 1(section: The India-China Border)}}

The term "LAC" gained legal recognition in Sino-Indian agreements signed in 1993 and 1996. The 1996 agreement states, "No activities of either side shall overstep the line of actual control."Sali, M.L., (2008) [https://books.google.com/books?id=TvXlFsxmJiMC India-China border dispute] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221028053921/https://books.google.com/books?id=TvXlFsxmJiMC |date=28 October 2022 }}, p. 185, {{ISBN|1-4343-6971-4}}. However, clause number 6 of the 1993 Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Areas mentions, "The two sides agree that references to the line of actual control in this Agreement do not prejudice their respective positions on the boundary question".

{{cite web |url=http://peacemaker.un.org/chinaindia-borderagreement93 |title=Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Areas |date=7 September 1993 |publisher=United Nations |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170610110909/http://peacemaker.un.org/chinaindia-borderagreement93 |archive-date=10 June 2017 |url-status=live }}

The Indian government claims that Chinese troops continue to illegally enter the area hundreds of times every year, including aerial sightings and intrusions.

[http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/chinese-troops-had-dismantled-bunkers-on-indian-side-of-line-of-actual-control-in-august-2011/1/267661.html "Chinese Troops Had Dismantled Bunkers on Indian Side of LoAC in August 2011"] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130430202112/http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/chinese-troops-had-dismantled-bunkers-on-indian-side-of-line-of-actual-control-in-august-2011/1/267661.html |date=30 April 2013}}. India Today. 25 April 2013. Retrieved 11 May 2013.

{{cite news |title=India: Army 'mistook planets for spy drones' |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23455128 |date=25 July 2013 |publisher=BBC}}

In 2013, there was a three-week standoff (2013 Daulat Beg Oldi incident) between Indian and Chinese troops 30 km southeast of Daulat Beg Oldi. It was resolved and both Chinese and Indian troops withdrew in exchange for an Indian agreement to destroy some military structures over 250 km to the south near Chumar that the Chinese perceived as threatening.

Defense News. [http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=1554 "India Destroyed Bunkers in Chumar to Resolve Ladakh Row"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130724185744/http://defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=1554 |date=24 July 2013 }}. Defense News. 8 May 2013. Retrieved 11 May 2013.

In October 2013, India and China signed a border defence cooperation agreement to ensure that patrolling along the LAC does not escalate into armed conflict.

Reuters. [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-india-idUSBRE99M04J20131023 China, India sign deal aimed at soothing Himalayan tension] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924190154/http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/23/us-china-india-idUSBRE99M04J20131023 |date=24 September 2015 }}

In October 2024, India announced that it had reached an agreement over patrolling arrangements along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the border area, which would lead to disengagement and resolution of the long-running conflict that began in 2020.{{Cite web |last=Sen |first=Amiti |date=2024-10-21 |title=LAC breakthrough: India, China agree on patrolling arrangements in border area |url=https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/lac-breakthrough-india-china-agree-on-patrolling-arrangements-in-border-area/article68779840.ece |access-date=2024-10-22 |website=BusinessLine |language=en}}

{{See also|China–Myanmar border#History}}

File:Chinese claim lines in Ladakh - map by CIA.png]]

{{expand section|date=September 2020}}

File:Aksai Chin Sino-Indian border map.png

The date of 7 November 1959, on which the Chinese premier Zhou Enlai alluded to the concept of "line of actual control", achieved a certain sanctity in Chinese nomenclature. But there was no line defined in 1959. Scholars state that Chinese maps had shown a steadily advancing line in the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary, each of which was identified as "the line of actual control as of 7 November 1959".

{{harvp|Fisher, India in 1963|1964|p=738}}: 'For India, the determination of the line from which the Chinese were to withdraw was of crucial importance since in this sector Chinese maps over the years had shown steadily advancing claims, with quite different lines each identified as "the line of actual control as of 7 November 1959".'

{{harvp|Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground|1963|pp=137-138}}: 'In fact, the Chinese claim that their 1956 and 1960 maps were "equally valid" was soon used to define the 1959 "line of actual control" as essentially the border shown on the 1960 map—thus incorporating several thousand additional square miles, some of which had not been seized until after the hostilities had broken out in October, 1962.'

{{harvp|Hoffmann, India and the China Crisis|1990|p=225}}: 'Furthermore, the Chinese claim line differed greatly from any line held by them on 7 November 1959 and reflected their efforts to establish claims to Indian territory by force, both before and after their massive attack on Indian outposts and forces on 20 October 1962. In some places the line still went beyond the territory that the invading Chinese army had reached.'

On 24 October 1962, after the initial thrust of the Chinese forces in the Sino-Indian War, the Chinese premier Zhou Enlai wrote to the heads of ten African and Asian nations outlining his proposals for peace, a fundamental tenet of which was that both sides should undertake not to cross the "line of actual control".{{sfnp|Whiting, Chinese calculus of deterrence|1975|pp=123–124}} This letter was accompanied by certain maps which again identified the "line of actual control as of 7 November 1959". Margaret Fisher calls it the "line of actual control as of 7 November 1959" as published in November 1962.{{harvp|Fisher, India in 1963|1964|pp=738–739}}

{{cite journal |last1=Karackattu |first1=Joe Thomas |title=The Corrosive Compromise of the Sino-Indian Border Management Framework: From Doklam to Galwan |journal=Asian Affairs |volume=51 |issue=3 |year=2020 |pages=590–604 |issn=0306-8374 |doi=10.1080/03068374.2020.1804726|s2cid=222093756 }} See Fig. 1, p. 592

Scholar Stephen Hoffmann states that the line represented not any position held by the Chinese on 7 November 1959, but rather incorporated the gains made by the Chinese army before and after the massive attack on 20 October 1962. In some cases, it went beyond the territory the Chinese army had reached.{{sfnp|Hoffmann, India and the China Crisis|1990|p=225}}

India's understanding of the 1959 line passed through Haji Langar, Shamal Lungpa and Kongka La (the red line shown on Map 2).[https://www.claudearpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/1963-Chinese-Agression-in-Maps.pdf Chinese Aggression in Maps: Ten maps, with an introduction and explanatory notes] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200927055404/http://www.claudearpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/1963-Chinese-Agression-in-Maps.pdf |date=27 September 2020 }}, Publications Division, Government of India, 1963. Map 2.

Even though the Chinese-claimed line was not acceptable to India as the depiction of an actual position,

Inder Malhotra, [http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/the-colombo--compromise-/860792/ The Colombo ‘compromise’], The Indian Express, 17 October 2011. "Nehru also rejected emphatically China's definition of the LAC as it existed on November 7, 1959."

it was apparently acceptable as the line from which the Chinese would undertake to withdraw 20 kilometres. Despite the non-acceptance by India of the Chinese proposals, the Chinese did withdraw 20 kilometres from this line, and henceforth continued to depict it as the "line of actual control of 1959".{{sfnp|Hoffmann, India and the China Crisis|1990|loc=Map 6: "India's forward policy, a Chinese view", p. 105}}{{Cite web |url=https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/175959.pdf |title=Premier Zhou Letter to Prime Minister Nehru dated November 07, 1959 |access-date=9 September 2022 |archive-date=9 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220909193824/https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/175959.pdf |url-status=live }}

In December 1962, representatives of six African and Asian nations met in Colombo to develop peace proposals for India and China. Their proposals formalised the Chinese pledge of 20-kilometre withdrawal and the same line was used, labelled as "the line from which the Chinese forces will withdraw 20 km."{{sfnp|Hoffmann, India and the China Crisis|1990|p=226}}[http://www.claudearpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Aksai-Chin.jpg ILLUSTRATION DES PROPOSITIONS DE LA CONFERENCE DE COLOMBO - SECTEUR OCCIDENTAL] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201012093110/http://www.claudearpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Aksai-Chin.jpg |date=12 October 2020 }}, claudearpi.net, retrieved 1 October 2020. "Ligne au dela de la quelle les forces Chinoises se retirent de 20 km. selon les propositions de la Conférence de Colombo (Line beyond which the Chinese forces will withdraw 20 km. according to the proposals of the Colombo Conference)"

This line was essentially forgotten by both sides till 2013, when the Chinese PLA revived it during its Depsang incursion as a new border claim.

{{harvp|Gupta, The Himalayan Face-off|2014|loc=Introduction}}: "While the Indian Army asked the PLA to withdraw to its original positions as per the 1976 border patrolling agreement, the PLA produced a map, which was part of the annexure to a letter written by Zhou to Nehru and the Conference of African-Asian leaders in November 1959 [sic; the correct date is November 1962], to buttress its case that the new position was well within the Chinese side of the LAC."

{{efn|The claimed line in this location is "new" in that it is well beyond the 1956 and 1960 claim lines of China, the latter having been called the "traditional customary boundary". It is said to be 19 km beyond it, in Indian estimation.}}

At the end of the 1962 war, India demanded that the Chinese withdraw to their positions on 8 September 1962 (the blue line in Map 2).

{{Main|Border Peace and Tranquility Agreement, 1993}}

Political relations following the 1962 war only saw signs of improvement towards the later 1970s and 80s. Ties had remained strained until then also because of Chinese attraction to Pakistan during India Pakistan wars in 1965 and 1971.{{Cite book |last=Li |first=Zhang |date=September 2010 |title=China-India Relations: Strategic Engagement and Challenges |url=https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/asievisions34zhangli.pdf |via=www.ifri.org |publisher=Institut français des relations internationales: Center for Asian Studies |isbn=9782865927746}} Restored ambassadorial relations in 1976, a visit of the Indian Prime Minister to China in 1988, a visit of the Chinese Premier to India in 1992 and then a visit of Indian President to China in 1992 preceded the 1993 agreement.{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=2 February 2002 |title=The Relations between China and India |url=http://in.china-embassy.org/eng/sgxw/zygx/t61475.htm |access-date=2021-02-16 |website=Embassy of the People's Republic Of China in India}} Prior to the 1993 agreement, a trade agreement was signed in 1984, followed by a cultural cooperation agreement in 1988.{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=23 December 1988 |title=Sino-Indian Joint Press Communique |url=https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjdt_665385/2649_665393/t15800.shtml |website=Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the People's Republic of China}}

The 1993 agreement, signed on 7 September, was the first bilateral agreement between China and India to contain the phrase Line of Actual Control. The agreement covered force level, consultations as a way forward and the role of a Joint Working Group. The agreement made it clear that there was an "ultimate solution to the boundary question between the two countries" which remained pending. It was also agreed that "the two sides agree that references to the line of actual control in this Agreement do not prejudice their respective positions on the boundary question".{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=1993 |title=PA-X: Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Areas |url=https://www.peaceagreements.org/view/286 |website=Peace Agreements Database |via=The University of Edinburgh}}

{{OSM Location map

| float = right

| height= 200

| width= 250

| zoom = 5

| nolabels = 1

| caption = Northern and middle sector. Red dots represent 10px sensitive and disputed locations, and locations of differing perceptions, on the LAC— such as Depsang, area of Kongka Pass, north of Kugrang River, north and south Pangong Tso, Spanggur Gap, opposite Dumchele, Demchok sector, Kaurik, Tashigang, Barahoti..

| coord = {{coord|33.450|79.058}}

| mark-coord = {{coord|35.4444|78.0300}} |label =North Samar Lungpa |label-pos = left | mark-size = 8| mark = Red pog.svg | mark-title = North of Samar Lungpa | mark-description= | label-size = 10 |label-angle=

| mark-coord1 = {{coord|34.3352449| 79.0357722}}| caption1 = Area of Kongka La|label1=Area of Kongka La|label-pos1 = right | mark-size1 = 8 | mark-title1 = Area of Kongka La | mark-description1= | label-size1 =10

| mark-coord2 = {{coord|34.3780|78.8463}}| caption2 =North of Kugrang River|label2=North of Kugrang River |label-pos2 = left | mark-size2 = 8| mark2 = Red pog.svg | mark-title2 = North of Kugrang River | mark-description2= | label-size2 = 10

| mark-coord3 = {{coord|33.7049|78.7435}}| caption3 =North and South Pangong Tso |label3=N&S Pangong Tso |label-pos3 =left| mark-size3 = 8| mark3 = Red pog.svg | mark-title3 = North and South Pangong Tso | mark-description3= | label-size3 = 10

| mark-coord4 = {{coord|33.5537700| 78.7400436}}| caption4 = Spanggur Gap|label4=Spanggur Gap |label-pos4 = right | mark-size4 = 8| mark4 = Red pog.svg | mark-title4 = Spanggur Gap | mark-description4= | label-size4 = 10

| mark-coord5 = {{coord|33.3203848| 79.0269091 }}| caption5 =East of Mt Sajum |label5= East of Mt Sajum |label-pos5 = left | mark-size5 = 8| mark5 = Red pog.svg | mark-title5 = Mt Sajum | mark-description5=East of Mt Sajum opposite Dumchele | label-size5 = 10

| mark-coord6 = {{coord|33.0761915| 79.1687747}}| caption6 = opposite Dumchele|label6=opposite Dumchele |label-pos6 = right | mark-size6 = 8| mark6 = Red pog.svg | label-color6 = | mark-title6 = Dumchele | mark-description6=East of Mt Sajum opposite Dumchele| label-size6 = 10

| mark-coord7 = {{coord|32.6453217| 78.5924985}}| caption7 = Chumar|label7=Chumar |label-pos7 = left | mark-size7 = 8| mark7 = Red pog.svg | label-color7 = | mark-title7 = Chumar | mark-description7=| label-size7 = 10

| mark-coord8 = {{coord|32.7040811| 79.4467432}}| caption8 =Demchok |label8=Demchok |label-pos8 = right | mark-size8 = 8| mark8 = Red pog.svg | label-color8 =| mark-title8 = Demchok| mark-description8=| label-size8 = 10

| mark-coord9 = {{coord|35.1648| 78.0606}}| caption9 = Trig Heights |label9= Trig Heights |label-pos9 = right | mark-size9 = 8| mark9 = Red pog.svg | label-color9 = | mark-title9= Trig Heights| mark-description9=| label-size9 = 10|label-angle9=

| mark-coord10 = {{coord|34.533333| 78.433333}}| caption10 =East of Point 6556 |label10= East of Point 6556 |label-pos10 = top | mark-size10 = 8| mark10 = Red pog.svg | label-color10 = | mark-title10= East of Point 6556| mark-description10=| label-size10 = 10|label-offset-y10=5

| mark-coord14 = {{coord|30.8333|79.9667}}| caption14 =Barahoti |label14= Barahoti |label-pos14 = right | mark-size14 = 8| mark14 = Red pog.svg | label-color14 = | mark-title14= Barahoti| mark-description14=| label-size14 = 10

| mark-coord15 = {{coord|31.8401|78.69669}}| caption15 =Tashigang |label15= Tashigang |label-pos15 = right | mark-size15 = 8| mark15 = Red pog.svg | label-color15 = | mark-title15= Tashigang| mark-description15=| label-size15 = 10

| mark-coord16 = {{coord|32.096|78.673}}| caption16 =Kaurik |label16= Kaurik |label-pos16 = right | mark-size16 = 8| mark16 = Red pog.svg | label-color16 = | mark-title16= Kaurik| mark-description16=| label-size16 = 10

}}

{{OSM Location map

| float = right

| height= 150

| width= 250

| zoom = 5

| nolabels = 1

| caption = Eastern sector (Sikkim not shown). Red dots represent 10px sensitive and disputed locations, and locations of differing perceptions, on the LAC and tri-junction areas— Locations include Asaphila, Doklam, Longju, Sumdorong Chu, Dichu area, Doklam.{{cite news |last1=Singh |first1=Sushant |title=De-escalation process underway: 2 LAC flashpoints are not in list of identified areas still contested |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-china-ladakh-border-lac-galwan-6441494/ |work=The Indian Express |date=4 June 2020}}{{cite news |last1=Gurung |first1=Shaurya Karanbir |title=Indian Army focussing on locations along LAC where Doklam-like flashpoints could happen |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/indian-army-focussing-on-locations-along-lac-where-doklam-like-flashpoints-could-happen/articleshow/62593521.cms |work=Economic Times |date=21 January 2018}}{{cite news |last1=Kalita |first1=Prabin |title=Defence forces on toes in six areas along LAC in Arunachal Pradesht |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/defence-forces-on-toes-in-six-disputed-areas-along-lac-in-arunachal-pradesh/articleshow/78198640.cms |work=The Times of India |date=19 September 2020}}

| coord = {{coord|27.810|94.427}}

| mark-coord11 = {{coord|28.43|93.17}}| caption11 =Asaphila |label11= Asaphila |label-pos11 = left | mark-size11 = 8| mark11 = Red pog.svg | label-color11 = | mark-title11= Asaphila| mark-description11=| label-size11 = 10

| mark-coord13 = {{coord|28.6404|93.3817}}| caption13 =Longju |label13= Longju |label-pos13 = left| mark-size13 = 8| mark13 = Red pog.svg | label-color13 = | mark-title13= Longju| mark-description13=| label-size13 = 10|label-offset-y13=-3

| mark-coord18 = {{coord|27.7818|91.7813}}| caption18 =Sumdorong Chu |label18= Sumdorong Chu |label-pos18 = right | mark-size18 = 8| mark18 = Red pog.svg | label-color18 = | mark-title18= Sumdorong Chu | mark-description18=| label-size18 = 10|label-offset-y18=-2

| mark-coord20= {{coord|28.2077998|97.2838434}}| caption20 =Dichu area |label20= Dichu area |label-pos20 = left | mark-size20 = 8| mark20 = Red pog.svg | label-color20 = | mark-title20= Dichu area | mark-description20=| label-size20 = 10

| mark-coord21= {{coord|29.0628031|96.1671497}}| caption21 =Fish-Tail -I |label21= Fish-Tail -I |label-pos21 = right | mark-size21 = 8| mark21 = Red pog.svg | label-color21 = | mark-title21= Fish-Tail -I | mark-description21=| label-size21 = 10

| mark-coord22= {{coord|28.5137267|96.4185297}}| caption22 =Fish-Tail -II |label22= Fish-Tail -II |label-pos22 = right | mark-size22 = 8| mark22 = Red pog.svg | label-color22 = | mark-title22= Fish-Tail -II | mark-description22=| label-size22 = 10

| mark-coord23= {{coord|28.8481|94.0435}}| caption23 =Lamang(?) |label23= Lamang |label-pos23 = left | mark-size23 = 8| mark23 = Red pog.svg | label-color23 = | mark-title23= Lamang | mark-description23=| label-size23 = 10|label-offset-y23=-5

| mark-coord24= {{coord|28.9458|95.3285}}| caption24 =Dibang Valley |label24= Dibang |label-pos24 = bottom| mark-size24 =8| mark24 = Red pog.svg | label-color24 = | mark-title24= Dibang Valley | mark-description24=| label-size24 = 10|label-offset-y24=-3

}}

In article 10 of the 1996 border agreement, both sides agreed to the exchange of maps to help clarify the alignment of the LAC.{{Cite web |date=1996 |title=Agreement between India and China on Confidence-Building Measures in the Military Field along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Areas |url=https://peacemaker.un.org/chinaindiaconfidenceagreement96 |access-date=2021-02-27 |website=peacemaker.un.org}} It was only in 2001 when the first in-depth discussion would take place with regard to the central/middle sectors.{{Cite web |last=Dixit |first=J. N. |author-link=Jyotindra Nath Dixit |date=17 July 2001 |title=Talks Know No Boundaries |url=https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/talks-know-no-boundaries/cid/927070 |website=Telegraph India}}{{Cite news |last=Pandey |first=Utkarsh |date=16 December 2020 |title=The India-China Border Question: An Analysis of International Law and State Practices |url=https://www.orfonline.org/research/the-india-china-border-question/ |website=ORF }} Maps of Sikkim were exchanged, resulting in the "Memorandum on Expanding Border Trade".{{Cite web |title=Documents signed between India and China during Prime Minister Vajpayee's visit to China (June 23, 2003) |url=https://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/7692 |access-date=2021-02-27 |website=www.mea.gov.in}} However the process of exchange of maps soon collapsed in 2002–2003 when other sectors were brought up.{{Cite web |date=29 November 2002 |agency=PTI |title=India, China exchange maps to resolve border dispute |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/india-china-exchange-maps-to-resolve-border-dispute/articleshow/29781150.cms |website=The Times of India }}{{Cite news |last=Joshi |first=Manoj |date=8 June 2020 |title=Indo-China row signals breakdown of confidence building measures |url=https://www.orfonline.org/research/indo-china-row-signals-breakdown-of-confidence-building-measures-67469/ |website=ORF }} Shivshankar Menon writes that a drawback of the process of exchanging maps as a starting point to clarify the LAC was that it gave both sides an "incentive to exaggerate their claims of where the LAC lay".{{sfnp|Menon, Choices|2016|p=21 (ebook)}}

On 30 July 2020, the Chinese Ambassador to India Sun Weidong stated that China was not in favour of clarifying the LAC anymore as it would create new disputes.{{Cite news |last=Krishnan |first=Ananth |date=2020-07-30 |title=Clarifying LAC could create new disputes: Chinese envoy |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/clarifying-lac-could-create-new-disputes-chinese-envoy/article32232724.ece |issn=0971-751X}} Similar viewpoints have been aired in India that China will keep the boundary dispute alive for as long as it can be used against India.{{sfnp|Menon, Choices|2016|p=32–34}} On the other hand, there have been voices which say that clarifying the LAC would be beneficial for both countries.{{Cite web |last=Wheeler |first=Travis |date=2019-05-10 |title=Clarify and Respect the Line of Actual Control |url=https://www.stimson.org/2019/clarify-and-respect-line-actual-control/ |website=Stimson Center }}

In the 1970s, India's China Study Group identified patrol points to which Indian forces would patrol. This was a better representation of how far India could patrol towards its perceived LAC and delimited India's limits of actual control. These periodic patrols were performed by both sides, and often crisscrossed.{{sfnp|Menon, Choices|2016|p=Chapter 1: Pacifying the Border. The 1993 Border Peace and Tranquility Agreement with China}}

Patrolling Points were identified by India's China Study Group in the 1970s to optimize patrolling effectiveness and resource utilization along the disputed and non-demarcarted China-India border at a time when border infrastructure was weak. Instead of patrolling the entire border which was more than 3000 km long, troops would just be required to patrol up to the patrolling points. Over time, as infrastructure, resources and troop capability improved and increased, the patrolling points were revised. The concept of patrol points came about well before India officially accepted the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Patrolling points give a more realistic on–ground guide of India's limits of actual control.{{Cite web |last1=Subramanian |first1=Nirupama |last2=Kaushik |first2=Krishn |date=2020-09-20 |title=Month before standoff, China blocked 5 patrol points in Depsang |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/month-before-standoff-china-blocked-5-patrol-points-in-depsang-6602896/ |website=The Indian Express }}{{Cite web |last=Singh |first=Sushant |date=2020-07-13 |title=Patrolling Points: What do these markers on the LAC signify? |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-what-do-patrolling-points-pps-on-lac-signify-6496840/ |website=The Indian Express }}{{Cite web |date=2020-07-09 |title=India-China LAC Standoff: Know what are patrolling points and what do they signify |url=https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/india-china-lac-standoff-know-what-are-patrolling-points-and-what-do-they-signify/2018462/ |website=The Financial Express }}

Most patrolling points are close to the LAC. However, in the Depsang plains, the patrolling points are said to remain well inside in LAC, despite having been revised a number of times. Former Army officers have said that patrolling points provide a better on-the-ground picture of India's limits of control. Based on location, the periodicity of visiting patrolling points can vary greatly from a few weeks to a couple of months. In some cases, the patrolling points are well-known landmarks such as mountain peaks or passes. In other cases, the pattrolling points are numbered, PP-1, PP-2 etc. There are over 65 patrolling points stretching from the Karakoram to Chumar.{{Cite news |last=Singh |first=Vijaita |date=2020-09-18 |title=LAC standoff {{!}} 10 patrolling points in eastern Ladakh blocked by Chinese People's Liberation Army, says senior official |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-china-lac-standoff-10-patrolling-points-in-eastern-ladakh-blocked-by-pla/article32642782.ece |issn=0971-751X}}

The patrolling points within the LAC and the patrol routes that join them are known as 'limits of patrolling'. Some army officers call this the "LAC within the LAC" or the actual LAC. The various patrol routes to the limits of patrolling are called the 'lines of patrolling'.

During the 2020 China–India skirmishes, the patrolling points under dispute included PPs 10 to 13, 14, 15, 17, and 17A. On 18 September 2020, an article in The Hindu wrote that "since April, Indian troops have been denied access to PPs numbered 9, 10, 11, 12, 12A, 13, 14, 15, 17, 17A."

India has 65 patrolling points in Eastern Ladakh, from Karakoram Pass to Chumar. Patrolling points are not the limits of Indian claim, because Indian claim extends beyond these patrolling points. These patrolling points were set by India as the patrolling limits for the Indian Army to patrol and avoid confrontation with the PLA to maintain peace on LAC with China, which had proved to be a superior military power in 1962 border war.[https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/patrolling-points-do-not-define-the-indian-claim-in-east-ladakh-lac-101664165666451.html Patrolling points do not define the Indian claim in East Ladakh LAC], Hindustan Times, 26 Sept 2022. According to a 2020 report by an Indian police officer, India lost access to 26 of 65 patrolling points (PP 5–17 in Depsang Plains & Depsang Bulge including Samar Lungpa & Galwan, 24-32 in Changchenmo basin, 37 in Skakjung pasture, 51 & 52 in Demchok & Chardhing Nala, 62 in Chumar) in Ladakh due to being restricted by China.[https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2023/01/25/has-india-lost-26-of-65-patrolling-points-to-china-in-ladakh.html Has India lost 26 of 65 patrolling points to China in Ladakh?], The Week, 25 Jan 2023 India's opposition party Congress claims that the Narendra Modi-ruled government of India is covering up "territorial setbacks" in this area, while the ruling government has denied the charges as "politically motivated".[https://thewire.in/security/ladakh-local-herders-clash-with-chinese-solders-over-access-to-grazing-land Ladakh: Local Herders Clash With Chinese Soldiers Over Access to Grazing Land], The Wire, 30 Jan 2024.

Listed by the mountain ranges.

• Karakoram range: two important subranges in disputed area are Changchenmo Range and Pangong Range as below.[https://theprint.in/opinion/if-india-loses-grip-on-kailash-range-pla-will-make-sure-we-never-get-it-back/542327/?amp If India loses grip on Kailash Range, PLA will make sure we never get it back], The Print, 12 November 2020.
• Changchenmo Range - a subrange of Karakoram range.
• PP1 to PP3 — near the Karakoram Pass{{Cite web |date=2020-08-04 |agency=ANI |title=India deploys troops and tanks in Ladakh to counter Chinese deployment |url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/040820/india-deploys-tank-regiments-in-ladakh-to-counter-chinese-troop-deploy.html |website=Deccan Chronicle }}
• PP4 to PP9 — in Depsang plains.
• PP10 to PP13 including PP11A — in the Depsang Bulge from Y-Junction to Raki Nala (PP10), Y-Junction to Jivan Nala (PP13), and in between these two.
• PP14 — in Galwan Valley, a mutually agreed before zone has been created due to which India is unable to access this PP.[https://theprint.in/defence/5-maps-that-tell-you-all-you-want-to-know-about-india-vs-china-in-ladakh/507289/ 5 maps that tell you all you want to know about India vs China in Ladakh], The Print, 23 Sept 2020.
• PP15 — on the watershed between Kugrang and Galwan basins (called Jianan Pass by China).Lt. Gen. H. S. Panag, [https://theprint.in/opinion/india-chinas-stand-on-hot-springs-has-2-sticking-points-chang-chenmo-1959-claim-line/915614/ India, China’s stand on Hot Springs has 2 sticking points — Chang Chenmo, 1959 Claim Line] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220702213746/https://theprint.in/opinion/india-chinas-stand-on-hot-springs-has-2-sticking-points-chang-chenmo-1959-claim-line/915614/ |date=2 July 2022 }}, The Print, 14 April 2022.
• PP16, PP17 and PP17A — Kugrang River Valley, the last near Gogra{{harvp|Joshi, Eastern Ladakh|2021|loc=p.11, Fig. 2}}
• PP18 to PP23 — southeast of Gogra, from the Silung Barma (Chang Chenmo River tributary) towards Pangong Tso
• Pangong Range, a sub range of Karakoram Range, runs from Chushul along southern shore of Panggong Tso on India-China LAC.
• PP24 to PP?
• Kailash Range
• PP35 to PP37 — in Skakjung pasture & near China-administered Dumchele. There have been several incursions by the China in this area. Due to the different perception of the border India and China and continuing Chinese incursions in Chushul, Chumur, Dungti, Phobrang, and Demchok has adversely affected the life of local Changpa nomadic herders.{{Cite web|last=Stobdan|first=P.|author-link=Phunchok Stobdan|date=26 April 2013|title=The Ladakh drift|url=http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/the-ladakh-drift/1107668/2|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-10-30|website=archive.indianexpress.com}}
• Demchok sector: Demchok and Chardhing Nala
• PP 38 to ?.
• Chumar Range:
• PP61? in Nilung Nala.
• PP 62 to 65 in Chumar sector.[https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/chinese-troops-make-2-incursion-attempts-in-ladakh/story-UneBzvzGVV48rI3Qn3leJL.html Chinese troops make 2 incursion attempts in Ladakh], Hindustan Times, 26 Jul 2014.

Glossary of border related terms:

{{Div col|colwidth=25em|content=

;Differing perceptions: Different views related to where the LAC lies. Similarly, areas of differing perceptions for different views related to areas along the LAC.{{Cite web |last=Srivastava |first=Niraj |date=24 June 2020 |title=Galwan Valley clash with China shows that India has discarded the 'differing perceptions' theory |url=https://scroll.in/article/965477/galwan-valley-clash-with-china-shows-that-india-has-discarded-the-differing-perceptions-theory |website=Scroll.in }}{{Cite news |last=Krishnan |first=Ananth |date=2020-05-24 |title=What explains the India-China border flare-up? |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/what-explains-the-india-china-border-flare-up/article31660378.ece |issn=0971-751X}}{{Cite web |last=Bedi |first=Lt Gen (Retd.) AS |date=4 June 2020 |title=India-China Standoff : Contracting Options in Ladakh |url=https://www.vifindia.org/print/7586?slide=$slideshow$ |website=www.vifindia.org}}

;Patrol Point:Points along LAC to which troops patrol; as compared to patrolling the entire area.{{Cite web |last1=Subramanian |first1=Nirupama |last2=Kaushik |first2=Krishn |date=2020-09-20 |title=Month before standoff, China blocked 5 patrol points in Depsang |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/month-before-standoff-china-blocked-5-patrol-points-in-depsang-6602896/ |website=The Indian Express }}{{Cite web |last=Singh |first=Sushant |date=2020-07-13 |title=Patrolling Points: What do these markers on the LAC signify? |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-what-do-patrolling-points-pps-on-lac-signify-6496840/ |website=The Indian Express }}{{Cite web |date=2020-07-09 |title=India-China LAC Standoff: Know what are patrolling points and what do they signify |url=https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/india-china-lac-standoff-know-what-are-patrolling-points-and-what-do-they-signify/2018462/ |website=The Financial Express }}

;Line of Actual Control (LAC):The Line of Actual Control (LAC) is a notional demarcation line that separates Indian-controlled territory from Chinese-controlled territory in the Sino-Indian border dispute.

;Limits of patrolling: PPs within the LAC and the patrol routes that join them are known as limits of patrolling.

;Actual LAC (ALC): Limits of patrolling also known as LAC within the LAC or actual LAC.

;Limits of actual control: Limits of actual control is determined by patrolling points and the limits of actual patrolling.

;Lines of patrolling: The various patrol routes to the limits of patrolling are called the limits of patrolling.

;Mutually agreed disputed spots: Both sides agree the location is disputed; as compared to just one side disputing a location.

;Border Personnel Meeting point: BPMs are locations the LAC where the armies of both countries hold meetings to resolve border issues and improve relations.

;Boundary: The "line between two states that marks the limits of sovereign jurisdiction" or "a line agreed upon by both states and normally delineated on maps and demarcated on the ground by both sides" as explained by S Menon.{{sfnp|Menon, Choices|2016|p=3–4 (ebook) |loc=Chapter 1: Pacifying the Border. The 1993 Border Peace and Tranquility Agreement with China}}

;Border: "A zone between the two states, nations, or civilizations. It is frequently also an area where peoples, nations, and cultures intermingle and are in contact with one another" as explained by Shivshankar Menon.{{sfnp|Menon, Choices|2016|p=3–4 (ebook)|loc=Chapter 1: Pacifying the Border. The 1993 Border Peace and Tranquility Agreement with China}}

|small=80%|gap=}}

• Aksai Chin
• Arunachal Pradesh
• Border Personnel Meeting point
• McMahon Line
• Sino-Indian relations
• Sino-Indian border dispute
• 2024 India-China Border Patrol Agreement
• Tibet

{{notelist}}

{{Reflist}}

• {{citation |first=Margaret W. |last=Fisher |title=India in 1963: A Year of Travail |journal=Asian Survey |date=March 1964 |volume=4 |number=3 |pages=737–745 |doi=10.2307/3023561 |jstor=3023561 |ref={{sfnref|Fisher, India in 1963|1964}}}}
• {{citation |last1=Fisher |first1=Margaret W. |last2=Rose |first2=Leo E. |last3=Huttenback |first3=Robert A. |title=Himalayan Battleground: Sino-Indian Rivalry in Ladakh |date=1963 |publisher=Praeger |url=https://archive.org/details/himalayanbattleg0000unse/mode/2up |via=archive.org |ref={{sfnref|Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground|1963}}}}
• {{citation |last=Gupta |first=Shishir |title=The Himalayan Face-Off: Chinese Assertion and the Indian Riposte |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7Ig5AwAAQBAJ |year=2014 |publisher=Hachette India |isbn=978-93-5009-606-2 |ref={{sfnref|Gupta, The Himalayan Face-off|2014}}}}
• {{citation |last=Hoffmann |first=Steven A. |title=India and the China Crisis |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BpSRwC5_EPUC |year=1990 |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=978-0-520-06537-6 |ref={{sfnref|Hoffmann, India and the China Crisis|1990}}}}
• {{citation |last=Joshi |first=Manoj |author-link=Manoj Joshi (journalist) |title=Eastern Ladakh, the Longer Perspective |newspaper=Orf |publisher=Observer Research Foundation |date=2021 |url=https://www.orfonline.org/research/eastern-ladakh-the-longer-perspective/ |ref={{sfnref|Joshi, Eastern Ladakh|2021}}}}
• {{citation |last=Menon |first=Shivshankar |title=Choices: Inside the Making of India's Foreign Policy |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GduACwAAQBAJ |year=2016 |publisher=Brookings Institution Press |isbn=978-0-8157-2911-2 |ref={{sfnref|Menon, Choices|2016}}}}
• {{citation |last=Torri |first=Michelguglielmo |year=2020 |title=India 2020: Confronting China, Aligning with the US |journal=Asia Major |volume=XXXI |url=https://www.asiamaior.org/the-journal/asia-maior-vol-xxxi-2020/india-2020-confronting-china-aligning-with-the-us.html |id={{ProQuest|2562568306}} |ref={{sfnref|Torri, India 2020|2020}}}}
• {{citation |last=Whiting |first=Allen Suess |title=The Chinese Calculus of Deterrence: India and Indochina |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Dl3fAAAAMAAJ |year=1975 |publisher=University of Michigan Press |isbn=978-0-472-96900-5 |ref={{sfnref|Whiting, Chinese calculus of deterrence|1975}}}}

• {{cite web |last=Unnithan |first=Sandeep |title=Standing up to a stand-off |newspaper=India Today, 30 May 2020 |date=30 May 2020 |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/guest-column/story/20200608-standing-up-to-a-stand-off-1683231-2020-05-30 }}
• Rup Narayan Das (May 2013) [https://idsa.in/system/files/Monograph19.pdf India-China Relations A New Paradigm]. IDSA

• [https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5515045#map=7/33.775/79.310 Borders of Ladakh], marked on OpenStreetMap represents the Line of Actual Control in the east and south (including the Demchok sector).
• Sushant Singh, [https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/line-of-actual-control-where-it-is-located-and-where-india-and-china-differ-6436436/ Line of Actual Control: Where it is located, and where India and China differ], The Indian Express, 2 June 2020.
• [https://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-why-china-s-playing-hardball-in-arunachal-1096493 Why China is playing hardball in Arunachal] by Venkatesan Vembu, Daily News & Analysis, 13 May 2007
• [https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/629-the-beauty-of-duplicity-two-maps-of-kashmir Two maps of Kashmir]: maps showing the Indian and Pakistani positions on the border.

{{Borders of China}}

{{Borders of India}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Line Of Actual Control}}

Category:1962 establishments in China

Category:1962 establishments in India

Category:1962 in international relations

Category:Geography of India

Category:China–India border

Category:Sino-Indian border dispute

Category:Sino-Indian War

Category:International borders

Category:Politics of the Kashmir conflict

Category:China in the Kashmir conflict

Category:Territorial disputes of Pakistan