China’s detention of Arunachal Indians at airports exposes a silent geopolitical war using stapled visas, passport invalidation, and civilian humiliation.
China’s Silent Siege: Airport Detentions and the Arunachal Shadow War
Introduction: 18 Hours of Humiliation
On November 21, 2025, a routine flight transit turned into an ordeal that laid bare a hidden tactic in Beijing’s geopolitical playbook. Prema Wangjom Thongdok, a UK-based Indian citizen born in Arunachal Pradesh, was held for 18 hours by Chinese immigration officials at Shanghai Pudong International Airport during a scheduled layover en route to Japan. The reason: authorities declared her Indian passport “invalid” because it listed Arunachal Pradesh as her place of birth, claiming the disputed territory as Chinese and mocking her nationality — even suggesting she apply for a Chinese passport. Thongdok was confined, denied basic facilities, and only released after Indian consular intervention and the purchase of fresh tickets. New Delhi lodged a formal and “strong” demarche, citing violations of international aviation conventions and demanding assurances that Indian citizens wouldn’t be targeted in transit.
This incident isn’t an isolated bureaucratic blunder. It reflects a nuanced, non-military pressure campaign, a shadow war in which China uses visas, passports, and international travel channels as instruments to challenge India’s sovereignty — particularly over Arunachal Pradesh, which Beijing labels Zangnan or “South Tibet.” This quiet siege, less visible than the Galwan Valley battlefield, is equally corrosive. Contrary to the perception of borders being defined only by tanks and troops, China’s strategy now includes civilian humiliation and diplomatic coercion — part of a wider “salami-slicing” approach that has strained ties with neighbours across Asia for decades.
China’s Expansionist Playbook
Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the Chinese Communist Party has pursued an expansionist territorial agenda drawn from historical grievances, strategic interests, and nationalist ideology. The arduous legacy of the McMahon Line — the 1914 demarcation inherited from British India — remains central. While India treats this line as the legitimate border with China in the eastern sector, Beijing rejects it and claims much of Arunachal Pradesh as part of Tibet.
Official Chinese maps often depict Arunachal’s territory within China’s boundary, underscoring Beijing’s refusal to accept the status quo. The issuance of “stapled visas” — visas attached to separate paper instead of stamped directly into the passport — began around 2005–2006 specifically for residents of Arunachal Pradesh (and similarly contested regions like Jammu & Kashmir), reflecting China’s refusal to acknowledge their Indian citizenship.
This tactic is symbolic but potent: by refusing to stamp visas in Indian passports for Arunachal residents, China insinuates that these individuals don’t truly belong to India. India, for its part, has refused to recognise stapled visas, viewing them as a violation of sovereignty.
The strategies are not confined to paperwork. Across Asia, Beijing has perfected a suite of hybrid tactics:
- In the South China Sea, it uses maritime militias and artificial islands to project control, ignoring international rulings.
- In Bhutan, Nepal, and Japan, China has probed territorial claims via diplomatic protests and incremental infrastructure moves.
- Its modernisation of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and rapid infrastructure build-outs along borders signal readiness to press claims if necessary.
These measures — often incremental, administrative, and ambiguous — allow China to assert claims without crossing the threshold of open conflict. The psychological effect is cumulative: eroding morale, normalising inconvenience, and embedding China’s narrative of entitlement.
Case Studies & Strategic Patterns
The Thongdok Detention (Nov 2025)
Thongdok’s 18-hour detention shows the escalation from bureaucratic inconvenience to active harassment. Officials allegedly seized her passport, barred her from boarding her connecting flight to Japan, and repeatedly emphasised that Arunachal is “not India” before she was finally released following Indian diplomatic pressure.
The Chinese position, however, was defensive: Beijing claimed its actions were lawful and denied harassment, a familiar diplomatic posture aimed at deflecting international criticism while sticking to its territorial line.
Stapled Visas and Deportation Patterns
The stapled-visa issue has a long history:
- Since the early 2000s, China has consistently issued stapled visas to Arunachalis — including officials and sportspeople — to avoid recognising the state’s Indian identity.
- In 2023, several Arunachal athletes were given stapled visas ahead of events such as the World University Games and Asian Games, triggering Indian protests and team withdrawals.
- There are documented cases of older athletes and officials being denied regular visas or accreditation for the same reason.
These incidents convey a consistent message: Arunachal’s people remain pawns in a larger geopolitical contest.
Place-Name Changes and Soft Power
China has also published lists of Chinese names for villages, rivers, and mountains in Arunachal Pradesh, reinforcing its claim in the cartographic domain, if not on the ground. Such symbolic reconstructions aim to redefine reality in Beijing’s favour preemptively.
India’s Response & Strategic Shortcomings
India’s immediate response to the Shanghai incident was firm but conventional: a diplomatic protest, public statements reaffirming Arunachal’s status, and demands that China uphold international aviation conventions — specifically the Chicago and Montreal Conventions, which mandate respect for valid travel documents.
New Delhi has also sought written assurances from Beijing that Indian citizens transiting through Chinese airports will not be targeted, arbitrarily detained, or harassed — an acknowledgement of the broader vulnerability of Indian travellers in Chinese airspace.
However, such responses — formal démarches and media statements — have limited deterrent value against a state that routinely deflects criticism under claims of domestic legality. They are reactive rather than strategically preemptive, and they fall short of imposing meaningful costs on Beijing’s behaviour.
Worse yet, repeated exposure to such slights risks a kind of moral erosion among the Indian public. When stories of arbitrary detentions, passport invalidation, or travel restrictions become routine headlines, the outrage can diminish, enabling Beijing’s narrative to gain subconscious acceptance even among some travel-weary citizens.
India’s broader China policy oscillates between economic engagement and strategic caution. Yet without calibrated reciprocal measures — such as targeted travel advisories, sanctions on discriminatory practices, or leveraging international aviation bodies — such symbolic victories remain hollow.
Analysis & Strategic Implications
The Thongdok case exposes how China’s hybrid tactics operate beneath the threshold of kinetic warfare:
- They exploit legal ambiguity (e.g., transit without visa rules) as psychological leverage.
- They exploit global travel systems to extend territorial claims beyond the battlefield.
- They test India’s diplomatic resolve and readiness to protect citizens abroad.
This slow, non-violent attrition of sovereignty claims is a hallmark of China’s foreign policy — one that has repeatedly pushed boundaries with Bhutan, Nepal, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Taiwan, and Russia. Whether through fishing disputes in the South China Sea or infrastructure pushes along ill-defined borders, China’s approach blends coercion, cartography, and lawfare.
India must resist habituation. The cost of complacency isn’t just diplomatic embarrassment — it’s the gradual acceptance of China’s narrative of entitlement, which underpins its broader expansionist policy.
To counter this, India could:
- Strengthen travel advisories on Chinese transits and enforce reciprocal treatment protocols.
- Champion international legal norms in aviation forums to protect citizen rights.
- Deepen strategic alliances (e.g., Quad, ASEAN partners) to collectively pressure China on international governance standards.
Conclusion: Sovereignty Beyond the Battlefield
China’s detention of Indian travellers from Arunachal Pradesh is more than an isolated passport dispute; it is a strategic signal — a soft coercive tactic woven into a broader pattern of territorial assertion. As New Delhi grapples with this new shadow war, it must transcend ceremonial protests and invest in creative, enforceable policies that uphold both national dignity and global norms of travel and citizenship. India must signal that sovereignty is not just defended by soldiers at the Line of Actual Control, but also by diplomats, lawyers, and everyday travellers asserting their rights on the global stage.
Questions for Readers
- Should India ban Chinese airline transits for Indian passport holders until assurances are secured?
- How can India leverage international aviation law to protect its citizens?
- What role should multilateral forums play in countering such hybrid tactics?
Discover more from
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
