India has strongly criticised China for what it has termed “arbitrary actions” following the detention and questioning of an Indian citizen from Arunachal Pradesh at Shanghai airport. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) stated that such actions undermine ongoing efforts to rebuild trust and normalise bilateral relations between the two Asian neighbours, both of which have been engaged in delicate diplomatic processes after years of border tensions.

The incident that drew India’s objection involved Prema Wangjom Thongdok, a UK-based Indian citizen originally from Arunachal Pradesh. While travelling from London to Japan on November 21, her brief layover in Shanghai turned into an unexpected and distressing ordeal. According to her account, Chinese immigration authorities declared her valid Indian passport “invalid,” citing the birthplace entry that identified Arunachal Pradesh—territory China claims as part of its own region called Zangnan. This, she said, led to prolonged questioning and significant inconvenience despite her onward travel itinerary.

Addressing the matter during a weekly media briefing, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal expressed India’s deep concern. He stated that actions such as these are “most unhelpful” at a time when both countries are attempting to foster mutual trust and move towards normalising ties strained by military standoffs and geopolitical disagreements. Responding to a question about the potential consequences of this incident on bilateral relations, Jaiswal reiterated that the government views such disruptions very seriously.

The MEA made its position clear: Arunachal Pradesh is an “integral and inalienable” part of India, and no amount of denial or unilateral assertion by China can alter this fact. This reaffirmation followed earlier statements from New Delhi, issued shortly after Beijing reiterated its long-standing claim over the region and rejected allegations that Thongdok was harassed or detained.

China, however, offered a different version of the events. Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning claimed that the passenger was not subjected to any compulsory measures or mistreatment. She argued that border inspection authorities had merely carried out standard procedures under domestic laws and regulations. Mao reiterated Beijing’s position that Zangnan, or what India calls Arunachal Pradesh, is Chinese territory and that China does not recognise what it views as an “illegally established” Indian state. According to her statement, the authorities acted within the legal framework while safeguarding the individual’s rights.

India’s response went beyond public statements. The government lodged a strong demarche—a formal diplomatic protest—in both Beijing and New Delhi on the same day the incident occurred. Additionally, the Indian consulate in Shanghai intervened to assist the stranded passenger, ensuring that she received appropriate support during the episode.

This incident has come at a sensitive time in India-China relations. Although tensions have eased since the violent border clashes of 2020, the relationship remains fragile. Jaiswal underscored that peace and tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) are essential prerequisites for the overall development of bilateral ties. He noted that since October 2024, the two sides have worked to preserve stability in the border regions, which has allowed progress in people-centric engagements and other cooperative areas. The understanding reached in October 2024 to end the prolonged standoff in the Ladakh sector marked a significant turning point, but mistrust persists.

One of the long-standing points of contention between the two countries is China’s consistent refusal to acknowledge India’s sovereignty over Arunachal Pradesh. Over the years, Beijing has attempted to reinforce its territorial claim by renaming towns, villages, and geographical landmarks in the state. India has consistently rejected these moves as politically motivated and without legal basis. This broader territorial dispute forms the backdrop against which the Shanghai airport incident unfolded.

For India, such actions by Chinese authorities do not merely inconvenience individual travellers—they represent behaviour that challenges India’s sovereignty and has broader implications for diplomatic engagement. The MEA’s strong response reflects its view that trust cannot be rebuilt if China continues to act in ways that disregard Indian citizens’ rights or dispute India’s territorial integrity in administrative or procedural contexts.

Meanwhile, China’s insistence that its authorities acted appropriately according to domestic law highlights the deeper disagreement over the legal and political status of Arunachal Pradesh. While China’s statements emphasise procedural propriety, India views the very basis of the questioning as illegitimate and politically motivated. This divergence in interpretation ensures that such incidents carry diplomatic weight far beyond the individuals directly involved.

The episode underscores the fragile nature of the current phase of India-China relations. Efforts under various diplomatic mechanisms—including the Special Representatives dialogue—have sought to address issues surrounding the border, confidence-building measures, and steps towards full normalisation. Yet, actions such as the Shanghai airport incident reveal the persistent gaps between the two sides and the ease with which tensions can flare.

In the coming months, the focus is likely to remain on whether both countries can maintain stability along the border and avoid diplomatic flashpoints. India’s firm restatement of its position on Arunachal Pradesh indicates that it will not soften its stance on issues of territorial integrity. At the same time, China appears equally unwilling to dilute its claims, even if doing so complicates diplomatic exchanges and people-to-people interactions.

The incident involving Prema Wangjom Thongdok thus serves as a reminder of how deeply contested narratives over territory continue to shape interactions between Indian and Chinese institutions—even in settings such as airports. It also demonstrates the need for clearer mechanisms to prevent administrative decisions from escalating into diplomatic disputes.

While India and China continue to engage at multiple levels, events like these reveal the underlying fragility of the trust-building process. Whether both sides can prevent such episodes from derailing broader efforts remains to be seen. For now, India’s strong protest and China’s insistence on its legal interpretation suggest that disagreements over Arunachal Pradesh will continue to shape the trajectory of bilateral relations for the foreseeable future.