View source for 2020 2021 China India skirmishes

{{Short description|Border conflict between China and India}}


{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2022}}
{{Use Indian English|date=December 2020}}
{{Infobox military conflict
| conflict          = 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes
| partof            = the [[Sino-Indian border dispute]]
| caption           = A [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] map of Kashmir with red circles marking the rough locations of the conflicts near the [[Galwan River|Galwan Valley]] (top), [[Spanggur Tso]] and [[Pangong Tso]] (bottom). One section of the Pangong Tso-Chushul skirmish area along the LAC via [[NASA WorldWind]].
| image_size        = 270px
| image             = {{Photomontage
| photo1a = Kashmir Region (2020 skirmish locations).jpg
| photo2a = Pangong Tso and Spanggur Tso LAC and 2020 skirmish area annotated.png
| size = 270
| color = transparent
| border = 0
}}
| date              = {{start date|2020|05|05|df=y}} – {{end date|2021|01|20|df=y}}<br />({{Age in years, months, weeks and days|month1=05|day1=05|year1=2020|month2=01|day2=20|year2=2021}})
| place             = [[Line of Actual Control]] (LAC), Sino-Indian border
| width             = 400px
| result            = 
| status            = 2,000 sq km of Indian land ceded to China since June 2020.<ref name="Siddiqui"/><ref name=ndtv-grazing-grounds-gone /><ref name="India territory loss DH"/><ref name="Hindu India land buffer zones"/><ref>{{cite news |title=China Gained Ground on India During Bloody Summer in Himalayas |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-11-01/china-gained-ground-on-india-during-bloody-summer-in-himalayas |access-date=22 November 2022 |work=Bloomberg.com |date=1 November 2020 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Bommakanti |first1=Kartik |title=China is yet to restore status quo ante on the India-China border |url=https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/china-is-yet-to-restore-status-quo-ante-on-the-india-china-border/ |website=ORF |access-date=22 November 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Return to status quo ante needed for situation to become normal in Eastern Ladakh: IAF chief |url=https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/return-to-status-quo-ante-needed-for-situation-to-become-normal-in-eastern-ladakh-indian-air-force-chief/cid/1890231 |access-date=22 November 2022 |work=www.telegraphindia.com}}</ref><br>
| combatant1        = {{IND}}
| combatant2        = {{CHN}}
| units1            = [[File:Indian Armed Forces.svg|18px]] [[Indian Armed Forces]]
*{{army|India}}
**[[File:Northern-Command-Indian Army-flag.svg|18px]] [[Northern Command (India)|Northern Command]]
*{{air force|India}}
*{{navy|India}}<ref name="MiG Indian Navy">{{Cite news |date=21 July 2020 |title=Indian Navy to move MiG-29K fighter jets to north amid border row with China |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/navy-to-move-mig-29k-fighters-to-north-amid-border-row/story-yU5X9WP1VxjVHvqOuLNoYO.html |access-date=21 July 2020}}</ref>
**{{Flagicon|India|naval}} [[Western Naval Command]]
*[[File:ITBP Flag.svg|18px]] [[Indo-Tibetan Border Police]]
'''[[Indian order of battle in the 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes|Indian order of battle]]'''
| units2            = {{armed forces|CHN}}
*{{army|CHN}}
*{{air force|CHN|name=PLA Air Force}}
**{{flagdeco|CHN|military}} [[Western Theater Command]]
*{{navy|CHN|name=PLA Navy}}
'''[[Chinese order of battle in the 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes|Chinese order of battle]]'''
| strength1         = '''Line of Actual Control''': 250,000<br />''(29 June 2021)''<ref>{{Cite web |date=28 June 2021 |title=In historic move, India deploys 50,000 more troops along China border |url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2021/jun/28/in-historic-move-india-deploys-50000-more-troops-along-china-border-2322705.html |access-date=7 February 2022 |website=The New Indian Express}}</ref>
| strength2         = '''Eastern Ladakh''': 60,000<br />''(3 January 2022)''<ref>{{Cite web |date=4 January 2022 |title=India-China border standoff: China constructs bridge on Pangong lake in Ladakh |url=https://www.livemint.com/news/india/indiachina-border-standoff-china-constructs-bridge-on-pangong-lake-in-ladakh-11641264740687.html |access-date=7 February 2022 |website=Livemint |quote=...deployed around 60,000 troops...}}</ref>
| commander1        = {{flagdeco|IND}} [[Ram Nath Kovind]]<br />{{flagdeco|IND}} [[Narendra Modi]]<br />{{flagdeco|IND}} [[Rajnath Singh]]<br />{{flagdeco|IND}} [[Bipin Rawat]]<br />{{flagdeco|IND}} [[Manoj Mukund Naravane]]<br />{{flagdeco|IND}} [[Karambir Singh]]<br />{{flagdeco|IND}} [[R. K. S. Bhadauria]]<br />{{flagdeco|IND}} [[Yogesh Kumar Joshi]]<br />{{flagdeco|IND}} [[Ajit Kumar P]]<ref name="MiG Indian Navy" /><br />{{flagdeco|IND}} [[Balakrishnan Suresh]]<br />{{flagdeco|IND}} [[Vivek Ram Chaudhari]]<ref>{{Cite news |date=24 July 2020 |title=Air Marshal Vivek Ram Chaudhari to take charge of Western Air Command amid tension at LAC |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/air-marshal-vivek-ram-chaudhari-to-take-charge-of-western-air-command-amid-tension-at-lac/story-XVW25BvpR7LYyGSQVgZyyH.html |access-date=1 August 2020}}</ref><br />{{flagdeco|IND}} [[Harinder Singh (general)|Harinder Singh]]<ref name="HT Galwan defuse" /><br />{{flagdeco|IND}} P. G. K. Menon<ref>{{Cite news |last=Negi |first=Manjeet Singh |date=13 October 2020 |title=Lt General PGK Menon takes over as commander of Fire & Fury Corps |work=India Today |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/lt-general-pgk-menon-takes-over-commander-fire-and-fury-corps-1731240-2020-10-13 |access-date=24 October 2020}}</ref><br />{{flagdeco|IND}} Abhijit Bapat<ref>{{Cite news |last=Bhaumik |first=Anirban |date=18 June 2020 |title=Galwan Valley: Indian, Chinese diplomats to hold video-conference soon |work=Deccan Herald |url=https://www.deccanherald.com/national/galwan-valley-indian-chinese-diplomats-to-hold-video-conference-soon-851144.html |access-date=18 June 2020}}</ref><br />{{flagdeco|IND}} P. G. Pynumootil<ref name="MiG Indian Navy" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=26 February 2019 |title=Rear Admiral Philipose George Pynumootil, NM Assumes Charge as Flag Officer Naval Aviation (FONA) |url=https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/rear-admiral-philipose-george-pynumootil-nm-assumes-charge-flag-officer-naval-aviation-fona |access-date=21 July 2020}}</ref><br />{{flagdeco|IND}} Subroto Kundu<ref>{{Cite news |date=9 April 2020 |title=IGP Ladakh reviews security arrangements |work=Daily Excelsior |url=https://www.dailyexcelsior.com/igp-ladakh-reviews-security-arrangements/ |access-date=19 June 2020}}</ref><br />{{flagdeco|IND}} Vijay Rana {{WIA}}<ref name="Kakar-2022">{{Cite web |last=Kakar |first=Maj Gen Harsha |date=16 January 2022 |title=India-China standoff: How possibility of escalation has reduced but that of continued stalemate increased |url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/india-china-standoff-how-possibility-of-escalation-has-reduced-but-that-of-continued-stalemate-increased-10289431.html |access-date=7 February 2022 |website=[[Firstpost]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Swami |first=Praveen |author-link=Praveen Swami |date=23 June 2020 |title=PLA Attacked Indian Troops in Galwan Valley Violating Border Agreements and Protocols |url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/pla-attacked-indian-troops-in-galwan-valley-violating-border-agreements-and-protocols-2673347.html |access-date=7 February 2022 |website=[[News18 India]]}}</ref><br />{{flagdeco|IND}} [[B. Santosh Babu|Santosh Babu]]{{KIA}}<ref name="Asianews">{{Cite web |date=16 June 2020 |title=India, Chinese troops face-off at eastern Ladakh; casualties on both sides |url=https://asianews.press/2020/06/16/india-chinese-troops-face-off-at-eastern-ladakh-india-army-officer-killed/ |access-date=17 June 2020 |website=Asia News |archive-date=16 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200616101426/https://asianews.press/2020/06/16/india-chinese-troops-face-off-at-eastern-ladakh-india-army-officer-killed/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>
| commander2        = {{flagdeco|CHN}} [[Xi Jinping]]<br />{{flagdeco|CHN}} [[Li Keqiang]]<br />{{flagdeco|CHN}} [[Wei Fenghe]]<br />{{flagdeco|CHN}} [[Xu Qiliang]]<br />{{flagdeco|CHN}} [[Zhang Youxia]]<br />{{flagdeco|CHN}} [[Li Zuocheng]]<br />{{flagdeco|CHN}} [[Han Weiguo]]<br />{{flagdeco|CHN}} [[Ding Laihang]]<br />{{flagdeco|CHN}} [[Zhao Zongqi]]<ref name="Chinese generals">{{Cite news |date=13 June 2020 |title=The Chinese generals involved in Ladakh standoff |work=Rediff.com |url=https://www.rediff.com/news/special/the-chinese-generals-involved-in-ladakh-standoff-/20200613.htm |access-date=19 June 2020}}</ref><br />{{flagdeco|CHN}} [[Zhang Xudong]]<ref>{{Cite news |date=18 December 2021 |title=Xi presents orders to promote military, armed police officers |work=Xinhuanet |url=http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-12/18/c_139601297.htm |access-date=14 June 2021}}</ref><ref name=":PLAupdate">{{Cite news |date=17 May 2021 |title=PLA modernises Xinjiang's military units in 'reaction' to India-China LAC row |language=en |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/pla-modernises-xinjiang-s-military-units-in-reaction-to-india-china-lac-row-101621231048385.html |url-status=live |access-date=14 June 2021}}</ref><br />{{flagdeco|CHN}} [[Wang Qiang (general)|Wang Qiang]]<ref name="Chinese generals" /><br />{{flagdeco|CHN}} [[Xu Qiling]]<ref name="Chinese generals" /><br />{{flagdeco|CHN}} Liu Lin<ref name="Chinese generals" /><ref name="HT Galwan defuse">{{cite news |date=18 June 2020 |title=Galwan Valley face-off: Indian, Chinese military officials meet to defuse tension |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/galwan-valley-face-off-indian-chinese-military-officials-meet-to-defuse-tension/story-WPBzxRcYshSE51gGPPzTeM.html |access-date=18 June 2020}}</ref><br />{{flagdeco|CHN}} [[Chen Hongjun]]{{KIA}}
| casualties1       = '''Per India:'''<br />''10 May 2020'':<br />4 injured<ref name=":casualtiesViaTribune">{{cite web |date=10 May 2020 |title=India, China skirmishes in Ladakh, Sikkim; many hurt |url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/india-china-skirmishes-in-ladakh-sikkim-many-hurt-83125 |website=The Tribune |location=India}}</ref><br />''15 June 2020'':<br />20 killed<ref name="20soldiers">{{cite news |last=Michael Safi and Hannah Ellis-Petersen |date=16 June 2020 |title=India says 20 soldiers killed on disputed Himalayan border with China |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/16/india-says-soldiers-killed-on-disputed-himalayan-border-with-china |access-date=16 June 2020}}</ref><ref name="Haidar-2020" /><br />
76 injured (18 serious, 58 minor)<ref name="OL1">{{Cite news |date=19 June 2020 |title=76 Soldiers Brutally Injured in Ladakh Face-off Stable And Recovering, Say Army Officials |work=[[Outlook (Indian magazine)|Outlook]] |url=https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-76-soldiers-brutally-injured-in-ladakh-face-off-stable-and-recovering-say-army-officials/354999 |access-date=19 June 2020}}</ref><br />
10 captured (released on 18 June)<ref name="auto4">{{Cite news |date=19 June 2020 |title=China denies detaining Indian soldiers after reports say 10 freed |publisher=Al Jazeera |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/06/china-releases-indian-soldiers-days-ladakh-clash-reports-200619033527314.html |access-date=21 June 2020}}</ref><ref name="OL1" /><ref name="auto1">{{Cite news |last=Roy |first=Rajesh |date=19 June 2020 |title=China Returns Indian Troops Captured in Deadly Clash |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-returns-indian-troops-captured-in-deadly-clash-11592579035 |url-access=subscription |access-date=19 June 2020}}</ref><ref name="auto3">{{Cite news |last1=Meyers |first1=Steven Lee |last2=Abi-Habib |first2=Maria |last3=Gettlemen |first3=Jeffrey |date=17 June 2020 |title=In China-India Clash, Two Nationalist Leaders With Little Room to Give |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/world/asia/china-india-border.html |access-date=19 June 2020}}</ref>
''20 January 2021'':<br /> 4 injured<ref name="indiatoday.in">{{Cite web |last=Shrivastava |first=Rahul |date=25 January 2021 |title=Indian soldiers thrash, push back Chinese soldiers at Naku La in Sikkim; Army issues statement |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-china-attempt-change-status-quo-lac-pla-soldiers-injured-nathu-la-indian-1762412-2021-01-25 |access-date=7 February 2022 |website=India Today}}</ref>
| casualties2       = '''Per China:'''<br />''15 June 2020'':<br />4 killed, 1 injured<ref name="auto">{{Cite news |last=Lee Myers |first=Steven |date=19 February 2021 |title=China Acknowledges 4 Deaths in Last Year's Border Clash With India |publisher=NY Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/19/world/asia/china-india-clash.html |access-date=19 February 2021}}: "The article [in ''PLA Daily''] did not present the four deaths as an exhaustive count."</ref><ref name="reuters.com">[https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2AJ04B China reveals four soldiers killed in June 2020 border clash with India], Reuters, 19 February 2021. 'Asked if this means no other Chinese soldiers died during the whole standoff that stretched for eight months after the June clash, Hua [Chunying] said: "Yes, I understand that's the case."'</ref>

'''Per India:'''<br />''10 May 2020'':<br />7 injured<ref name="casualtiesViaCNN">{{Cite news |last1=Sud |first1=Vedika |last2=Westcott |first2=Ben |date=11 May 2020 |title=Chinese and Indian soldiers engage in 'aggressive' cross-border skirmish |publisher=[[CNN]] |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/11/asia/china-india-border-dispute-intl-hnk/index.html |access-date=12 May 2020}}</ref><br />''15 June 2020'':<br />25–40 killed, 60+ casualties<ref name="sure">{{Cite news |last=Philip |first=Snehish Alex |date=1 March 2021 |title=4, 9 or 14? Even China 'isn't sure' how many PLA soldiers died in Galwan Valley |work=ThePrint |url=https://theprint.in/defence/4-9-or-14-even-china-isnt-sure-how-many-pla-soldiers-died-in-galwan-valley/613372/ |access-date=1 March 2021}}</ref><ref name="Chinese casualty count">{{Cite news |last=Krishnan |first=Ananth |title=China says four of its soldiers died in Galwan clash |work=The Hindu |publication-date=19 February 2021 |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/china-says-four-of-its-soldiers-died-in-galwan-clash/article33876744.ece |url-access=subscription |quote=The report, however, did not say how many injuries the PLA suffered in total, only mentioning the regimental commander's injury. The PLA likely suffered a far higher number of injured, with Indian officials saying they counted around 60 Chinese soldiers being carried on stretchers after the clash.}}</ref><ref name="43 casualties"/><br /><200 captured (later released)<ref name="nearly 200 captured">{{Cite news |last=Banerjee |first=Aritra |title=200 PLA Soldiers Were Detained By Indian Army; China Released Galwan Clash Pics In Retaliation – |publisher=Eurasian Times |publication-date=12 October 2021 |url=https://eurasiantimes.com/200-pla-soldiers-were-detained-by-indian-army-china-released-galwan-clash-pics/?amp}}</ref><ref name="DCCapturedChineseSoldiers20June"/><br />
''19 October 2020'':<br />1 captured (later released)<ref name="indiatoday_2021-01-09">{{Cite news |date=9 January 2021 |title=Chinese soldier captured in Ladakh's Chushul sector, to be returned |publisher=India today |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/chinese-army-soldier-captured-ladakh-chushul-sector-to-be-returned-1757421-2021-01-09}}</ref><br />
''9 January 2021'':<br />1 captured (later released)<ref name="indiatoday_2021-01-09" /><br /> ''20 January 2021'':<br />20 injured<ref name="indiatoday.in" />

'''Other sources:'''<br />''15 June 2020'':<br />20–35 killed (U.S. Intel.)<ref name="USNews1">{{Cite news |last=Shinkman |first=Paul D. |date=16 June 2020 |title=India, China Face Off in First Deadly Clash in Decades |work=[[U.S. News & World Report]] |url=https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2020-06-16/dozens-killed-as-india-china-face-off-in-first-deadly-clash-in-decades |access-date=16 June 2020}}</ref><ref name="Hindu35ChineseCasualties17June">{{Cite news |date=17 June 2020 |title=Ladakh face-off {{!}} Govt sources cite U.S. intelligence to claim China suffered 35 casualties |work=The Hindu |agency=PTI |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-sources-cite-us-intelligence-to-claim-china-suffered-35-casualties-during-galwan-clash/article31849492.ece |url-access=limited |access-date=27 July 2020 |issn=0971-751X |quote=as per U.S. intelligence reports, the Chinese Army suffered 35 casualties{{nbsp}}... The figure could be a combination of total number of soldiers killed and seriously wounded}}</ref><ref name="auto2">{{Cite news |last=Lee Myers |first=Steven |date=19 February 2021 |title=China Acknowledges 4 Deaths in Last Year's Border Clash With India |publisher=NY Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/19/world/asia/china-india-clash.html |access-date=19 February 2021}}: "An American intelligence official said last summer that China had deliberately concealed its soldiers' deaths, suggesting that between 20 and 30 had perished."</ref><br />≥45 killed ([[TASS|Russian sources]])<ref name="TASS-2021" /><br />≥41 fatalities{{Efn|
*38 drowned, including Junior Sergeant Wang Zhuoran.
*3; PLA Battalion Commander Major Chen Hongjun, Private Chen Xiangrong and Junior Sergeant Xiao Siyuan; killed by Indian forces.
*Unknown number of soldiers, claimed to be numerous, who were pushed or fell to their deaths over steep cliff edges.<ref name=":theklaxon" />}} (''The Klaxon'')<ref name=":theklaxon">{{Cite news |last=Klan |first=Anthony |date=2 February 2022 |title="Major drowning" of Chinese soldiers in India skirmish: new claims |work=The Klaxon |url=https://www.theklaxon.com.au/home/china-india-clash-death-58xj7 |access-date=3 February 2022 |archive-date=3 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220203074817/https://www.theklaxon.com.au/home/china-india-clash-death-58xj7 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
| campaignbox       = 
| notes             = 
}}

Beginning on 5 May 2020, [[People's Liberation Army|Chinese]] and [[Indian Army|Indian troops]] engaged in aggressive [[melee]], face-offs, and [[skirmish]]es at locations along the [[Sino-Indian border]], including near the disputed [[Pangong Lake]] in [[Ladakh]] and the [[Tibet Autonomous Region]], and near the border between [[Sikkim]] and the Tibet Autonomous Region. Additional clashes also took place at locations in eastern Ladakh along the [[Line of Actual Control]] (LAC).

In late May, Chinese forces objected to Indian road construction in the [[Galwan River|Galwan river]] valley.<ref name="multiple locations" /><ref name="3 places" /> According to Indian sources, [[melee]] fighting on 15–16 June 2020 resulted in the deaths of Chinese and Indian soldiers.<ref name="BBCNews-2020">{{Cite news |date=16 June 2020 |title=India soldiers killed in clash with Chinese forces |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53061476 |access-date=16 June 2020}}</ref><ref name="ANIFaceOffCO22Jun">{{Cite web |last=Som |first=Vishnu |date=22 June 2020 |editor-last=Ghosh |editor-first=Deepshikha |title=At Talks, China Confirms Commanding Officer Was Killed in Ladakh: Sources |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/chinese-army-confirms-their-commanding-officer-was-killed-in-ladakh-face-off-during-military-level-talks-in-galwan-sources-2250280 |access-date=22 June 2020 |website=NDTV.com}}</ref><ref name="43 casualties">{{Cite news |date=16 June 2020 |title=China suffered 43 casualties during face-off with India in Ladakh: Report |work=[[India Today]] |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-china-face-off-ladakh-lac-chinese-casualties-pla-1689714-2020-06-16 |access-date=17 June 2020}}</ref> Media reports stated that soldiers were taken captive on both sides and released in the coming few days while official sources on both sides went on to deny this.<ref name="Haidar-2020">{{Cite news |last1=Haidar |first1=Suhasini |last2=Peri |first2=Dinakar |date=18 June 2020 |title=Ladakh face-off {{!}} Days after clash, China frees 10 Indian soldiers |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ladakh-face-off-days-after-clash-china-frees-10-indian-soldiers/article31863845.ece |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=19 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200619061331/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ladakh-face-off-days-after-clash-china-frees-10-indian-soldiers/article31863845.ece |archive-date=19 June 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref><ref name="DCCapturedChineseSoldiers20June">{{Cite news |last=Bali |first=Pawan |date=20 June 2020 |title=India also released captured Chinese soldiers in Galwan Valley, claims Gen VK Singh |work=Deccan Chronicle |url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/200620/india-also-released-captured-chinese-soldiers-in-galwan-valley-claims.html}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=19 June 2020 |title=China denies detaining Indian soldiers after reports say 10 freed |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/06/china-releases-indian-soldiers-days-ladakh-clash-reports-200619033527314.html |access-date=26 August 2020 |website=Al Jazeera}}</ref> On 7 September, for the first time in 45 years, shots were fired along the LAC, with both sides blaming each other for the firing.<ref name="Gettleman-2020b">{{Cite news |last=Gettleman |first=Jeffrey |date=8 September 2020 |title=Shots Fired Along India-China Border for First Time in Years |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/world/asia/india-china-border.html |access-date=9 September 2020 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref name="Kaushik-2020c" /> Indian media also reported that Indian troops fired warning shots at the PLA on 30 August.<ref name="SinghV-2020b">{{Cite news |last=Singh |first=Vijaita |date=11 September 2020 |title=LAC standoff {{!}} Officials confirm two incidents of firing at south bank of Pangong Tso |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/lac-standoff-officials-confirm-two-incidents-of-firing-at-south-bank-of-pangong-tso/article32576781.ece |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=11 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200913044458/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/lac-standoff-officials-confirm-two-incidents-of-firing-at-south-bank-of-pangong-tso/article32576781.ece |archive-date=13 September 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref>

Partial disengagement from Galwan, [[Jianan Pass|Hot Springs]], and [[Gogra, Ladakh|Gogra]] occurred in June–July 2020 while complete disengagement from Pangong Lake north and south bank took place in February 2021.<ref name="HindustanTimes-2020b" /><ref name="Bhalla-2021">{{Cite web |last=Bhalla |first=Abhishek |date=19 February 2021 |title=India, China complete disengagement in Pangong Tso, next round of military talks on Saturday |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-china-disengagement-pangong-tso-military-talks-ladakh-1770870-2021-02-19 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210219063858/https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-china-disengagement-pangong-tso-military-talks-ladakh-1770870-2021-02-19 |archive-date=19 February 2021 |access-date=27 March 2021 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref> Following disengagement at [[Gogra, Chang Chenmo Valley|Gogra]] in August 2021, Indian analysts pointed out that the LAC has shifted westwards at [[Patrol Point|patrol point]] 17A (PP 17A).<ref name="SinghS-2021g" /><ref name="Panag-2021" />

Amid the standoff, India reinforced the region with approximately 12,000 additional workers, who would assist India's [[Border Roads Organisation]] in completing the development of Indian infrastructure along the Sino-Indian border.<ref name="SinghR-2020a">{{Cite news |last1=Singh |first1=Rahul |last2=Choudhury |first2=Sunetra |date=31 May 2020 |title=Amid Ladakh standoff, 12,000 workers to be moved to complete projects near China border |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/labourers-from-j-khand-to-lay-roads-on-china-border/story-1Hyh3KBaBwgEZ9eK5KhuFM.html |access-date=4 June 2020}}</ref><ref name="Ray-2020">{{Cite news |last1=Ray |first1=Kalyan |last2=Bhaumik |first2=Anirban |date=1 June 2020 |title=Amid border tension, India sends out a strong message to China |work=[[Deccan Herald]] |url=https://www.deccanherald.com/international/amid-border-tension-india-sends-out-a-strong-message-to-china-844496.html |access-date=4 June 2020}}</ref><ref name="Kumar-2020">{{Cite news |last=Kumar |first=Rajesh |date=14 June 2020 |title=CM flags off train with 1,600 workers for border projects |work=The Times of India |location=Ranchi |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ranchi/cm-flags-off-train-with-1600-workers-for-border-projects/articleshow/76364427.cms |access-date=15 June 2020}}</ref> Experts have postulated that the standoffs are Chinese pre-emptive measures in responding to the [[Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road]] infrastructure project in [[Ladakh]].<ref name="SinghS-2020d">{{Cite news |last=Singh |first=Sushant |date=26 May 2020 |title=Indian border infrastructure or Chinese assertiveness? Experts dissect what triggered China border moves |work=The Indian Express |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/china-india-line-of-actual-control-ladakh-6427647/ |access-date=26 May 2020}}</ref> China has also extensively developed its infrastructure in these disputed border regions and is continuing to do so.<ref name="BusinessToday-2020a">{{Cite news |last=Jaiswal |first=Mansi |date=27 May 2020 |title=China starts construction activities near Pangong Lake amid border tensions with India |work=[[Business Today (India)]] |url=https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/china-starts-construction-activities-near-pangong-lake-amid-border-tensions-with-india/story/405114.html |url-status=live |access-date=5 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200605072810/https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/china-starts-construction-activities-near-pangong-lake-amid-border-tensions-with-india/story/405114.html |archive-date=5 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Desai |first=Shweta |date=3 June 2020 |title=Beyond Ladakh: Here's how China is scaling up its assets along the India-Tibet frontier |work=Newslaundry |url=https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/06/03/beyond-ladakh-heres-how-china-is-scaling-up-its-assets-along-the-india-tibet-frontier |access-date=5 June 2020}}</ref> The [[revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir]], in August 2019, by the Indian government has also troubled China.<ref name="Krishnan-2020">{{Cite news |last=Krishnan |first=Ananth |date=12 June 2020 |title=Beijing think-tank links scrapping of Article 370 to LAC tensions |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/beijing-think-tank-links-scrapping-of-article-370-to-lac-tensions/article31815266.ece |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=15 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200612152241/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/beijing-think-tank-links-scrapping-of-article-370-to-lac-tensions/article31815266.ece |archive-date=12 June 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref> However, India and China have both maintained that there are enough bilateral mechanisms to resolve the situation.<ref name="Chaudhury-2020">{{Cite news |last=Chaudhury |first=Dipanjan Roy |date=29 May 2020 |title=India-China activate 5 pacts to defuse LAC tensions |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-china-activates-5-pacts-to-defuse-lac-tensions/articleshow/76083868.cms |access-date=3 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Roche |first=Elizabeth |date=8 June 2020 |title=India, China to continue quiet diplomacy on border dispute |work=LiveMint.com |url=https://www.livemint.com/news/india/india-china-to-continue-quiet-diplomacy-on-border-dispute-11591621429085.html |access-date=9 June 2020}}</ref> This includes multiple rounds of colonel, brigadier, and major general rank dialogue, [[Special Representative mechanism on the India-China boundary question|special representatives' meetings]],{{Efn|In 2003, during Prime Minister Vajpayee's visit to China, the Special Representatives mechanism for boundary dispute resolution was set up. Since then, the Special Representatives have had 22 rounds of talks till December 2019.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Sandhu |first=P.J.S. |date=21 July 2020 |title=It Is Time to Accept How Badly India Misread Chinese Intentions in 1962 – and 2020 |work=The Wire |url=https://thewire.in/security/india-china-xi-jinping-lac-border-modi-1962-war |access-date=14 October 2020}}</ref>}}<ref name="Sagar-2020b" /><ref name="Mitra-2020" /> meetings of the '[[Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs|Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on China-India Border Affairs]]' (WMCC),{{Efn|According to ''[[ThePrint]]'', "The WMCC is a joint secretary-level platform established in 2012 for border management between the countries and to share views on strengthening communication and cooperation, including between border security personnel."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Philip |first=Snehesh Alex |date=12 August 2020 |title=No progress made in India-China major general-level talks, all eyes now on diplomatic parleys |work=ThePrint |url=https://theprint.in/defence/no-progress-made-in-india-china-major-general-level-talks-all-eyes-now-on-diplomatic-parleys/479975/ |access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref>|name=|group=}}<ref name="TheWire-2020" /> and meetings and communication between their respective foreign and defense ministers.<ref name="HindustanTimes-2020d" /> On 12 January 2022, the 14th corps-commander-level meeting at Chushul-Moldo [[Border Personnel Meeting point|Border Personnel Meeting (BPM) point]] took place.<ref name="Kaushik-2022" />
Following the Galwan Valley skirmish on 15 June, some Indian campaigns about [[Boycotts of Chinese products|boycotting Chinese products]] were started.<ref name="The Economic Times2">{{Cite news |last1=Suneja |first1=Kirtika |last2=Agarwal |first2=Surabhi |date=17 June 2020 |title=Is This Hindi-Chini Bye Bye on Trade Front? Maybe Not: No immediate impact likely on business relations, say govt officials |work=The Economic Times |url=https://www.pressreader.com/india/the-economic-times/20200617/281492163565217 |access-date=4 July 2020 |via=Pressreader.com}}</ref><ref name="theprint.in2">{{Cite web |last=Pandey |first=Neelam |date=16 June 2020 |title=Traders' body calls for boycott of 3,000 Chinese products over 'continued' border clashes |url=https://theprint.in/india/traders-body-calls-for-boycott-of-3000-chinese-products-over-continued-border-clashes/442885/ |access-date=17 June 2020 |website=ThePrint}}</ref> Action on the economic front included cancellation and additional scrutiny of certain contracts with Chinese firms, and calls were also made to stop the entry of Chinese companies into strategic markets in India.<ref name="Ninan-2020" /><ref name="Arnimesh-2020" /><ref name="Dastidar-2020" /> By November 2020, the Indian government had banned over 200 Chinese apps, including apps owned by [[Alibaba Group|Alibaba]], [[Tencent]], [[Baidu]], [[Sina Corp|Sina]], and [[ByteDance|Bytedance]].<ref name="Krishnan-2020d">{{Cite news |last=Krishnan |first=Ananth |date=25 November 2020 |title=China slams India's ban on 43 more apps |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/china-slams-indias-move-to-ban-43-more-apps/article33175495.ece |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=26 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201130231547/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/china-slams-indias-move-to-ban-43-more-apps/article33175495.ece |archive-date=30 November 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref>

== Background ==
{{Main|Sino-Indian border dispute}}
The border between China and India is disputed at multiple locations. There is "no publicly available map depicting the Indian version of the LAC," and the [[Survey of India]] maps are the only evidence of the official border for India.<ref name="SinghS-2020b">{{Cite news |last=Singh |first=Sushant |date=2 June 2020 |title=Line of Actual Control: Where it is located, and where India and China differ |work=The Indian Express |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/line-of-actual-control-where-it-is-located-and-where-india-and-china-differ-6436436/ |url-status=live |access-date=3 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200601161232/https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/line-of-actual-control-where-it-is-located-and-where-india-and-china-differ-6436436/ |archive-date=1 June 2020}}</ref> The Chinese version of the LAC mostly consists of claims in the Ladakh region, but China also claims [[Arunachal Pradesh]] in northeast India.<ref name="SinghS-2020b" />

China and India previously fought over the border in [[Sino-Indian War|1962]] and [[Nathu La and Cho La clashes|1967]] with China gaining victory in the former and India gaining victory in the latter.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/north-east-india/arunachal-pradesh/arunachal-pradesh-villagers-get-rs-38-crore-land-compensation-56-years-after-indo-china-war-5411237/|title=Arunachal Pradesh: Villagers get Rs 38 crore land compensation 56 years after Indo-China war|date=21 October 2018}}</ref><ref name="Garver">{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TOVaMckcO0MC&pg=PA171 |title=Protracted Contest: Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Twentieth Century |last=Garver |first=John W. |date=2011 |publisher=University of Washington Press |isbn=9780295801209 |pages=171 |language=en}}</ref>

Since the 1980s, there have been over 50 rounds of talks between the two countries related to these border issues.<ref name="Spirit of Wuhan">{{Cite web |last=Ladwig |first=Walter |date=21 May 2020 |title=Not the 'Spirit of Wuhan': Skirmishes Between India and China |url=https://rusi.org/commentary/not-%E2%80%98spirit-wuhan%E2%80%99-skirmishes-between-india-and-china |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200528054807/https://rusi.org/commentary/not-%E2%80%98spirit-wuhan%E2%80%99-skirmishes-between-india-and-china |archive-date=28 May 2020 |access-date=26 May 2020 |publisher=[[Royal United Services Institute]]}}</ref> Only 1 to 2 percent of border incidents between 2010 and 2014 had received any form of media coverage.<ref name="Spirit of Wuhan" /><ref name="ORF">{{Cite web |last=Bhonsale |first=Mihir |date=12 February 2018 |title=Understanding Sino-Indian border issues: An analysis of incidents reported in the Indian media |url=https://www.orfonline.org/research/understanding-sino-indian-border-issues-an-analysis-of-incidents-reported-in-the-indian-media/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200603091712/https://www.orfonline.org/research/understanding-sino-indian-border-issues-an-analysis-of-incidents-reported-in-the-indian-media/ |archive-date=3 June 2020 |access-date=26 May 2020 |publisher=Observer Research Foundation}}</ref> In 2019, India reported over 660 LAC violations and 108 aerial violations by the People's Liberation Army which were significantly higher than the number of incidents in 2018.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Jeff M. |date=13 June 2020 |title=The Simmering Boundary: A "new normal" at the India–China border? {{!}} Part 1 |url=https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/simmering-boundary-new-normal-india-china-border-part-1-67784/ |access-date=15 June 2020 |website=ORF}}</ref> Despite the disputes, skirmishes, and standoffs, no incidence of gunshots being fired had been reported between the two countries along the border for over 50 years, due an agreement by both sides that guns were not to be used;<ref>{{Cite news |last=Lau |first=Staurt |date=6 July 2017 |title=How a strip of road led to China, India's worst stand-off in years |work=South China Morning Post |url=https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2101578/how-road-china-and-indias-border-led-two-powers-worst |url-status=live |access-date=4 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191216053740/https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2101578/how-road-china-and-indias-border-led-two-powers-worst |archive-date=16 December 2019}}</ref> however this changed on 7 September, when warning shots were fired.<ref name="Gettleman-2020b" />

During [[Xi Jinping]]'s<ref name="xi's titles">{{Cite web |last=Li |first=Nan |date=26 February 2018 |title=Party Congress Reshuffle Strengthens Xi's Hold on Central Military Commission |url=https://jamestown.org/program/party-congress-reshuffle-strengthens-xis-hold-central-military-commission/ |access-date=27 May 2020 |publisher=[[The Jamestown Foundation]] |quote=Xi Jinping has introduced major institutional changes to strengthen his control of the PLA in his roles as Party leader and chair of the Central Military Commission (CMC){{nbsp}}...}}</ref> visit to New Delhi in September 2014, Indian Prime Minister [[Narendra Modi]] discussed the boundary question and urged his counterpart for a solution.<ref>{{Cite report |url=https://cenjows.gov.in/pdf/CHINAs_INFRASTRUCTURE_IN_TIBET_Inside_Layout.pdf |title=China's Infrastructure in Tibet And Pok – Implications And Options For India |last=Bhatia |first=Vinod |publisher=Centre for Joint Warfare Studies, New Delhi |access-date=17 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200617192144/https://cenjows.gov.in/pdf/CHINAs_INFRASTRUCTURE_IN_TIBET_Inside_Layout.pdf |archive-date=17 June 2020 |url-status=dead |year=2016}}</ref> Since Modi became Prime Minister in 2014 until the 2020 standoff, Modi and Xi met 18 times, including those on the sidelines of summits and five visits to China.<ref>{{cite web |last=Roy |first=Shubhajit |date=17 June 2020 |title=18 Modi-Xi meetings, several pacts: killings breach consensus, dent diplomacy |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-china-standoff-diplomacy-lac-incident-mea-6462195/ |access-date=25 November 2020 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref> However, in 2017, China and India were involved in [[2017 China–India border standoff|a major standoff in Doklam]] that lasted 73 days.<ref name="AFP">{{cite news |last= |first= |date=11 May 2020 |title=Indian and Chinese soldiers injured in cross-border fistfight, says Delhi |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/11/indian-and-chinese-soldiers-injured-in-cross-border-fistfight-says-delhi |url-status=live |access-date=12 May 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200512035152/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/11/indian-and-chinese-soldiers-injured-in-cross-border-fistfight-says-delhi |archive-date=12 May 2020 |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref name="Som-2020b">{{cite news |last=Som |first=Vishnu |date=10 May 2020 |title=India, China troops clash in Sikkim, pull back after dialogue |publisher=NDTV |editor-last=Sanyal |editor-first=Anindita |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-chinese-soldiers-in-physical-fight-near-high-altitude-picket-in-north-sikkim-2226299 |access-date=12 May 2020}}</ref>  On 3 January 2018, Xi Jinping, as Chairman of the [[Central Military Commission (China)|Central Military Commission]], issued the first Training Mobilisation Order. This was the first time that military training instructions had been given directly by the Chairman of the Central Military Commission. Following this, PLA forces have been mobilising training on the basis of the order.<ref name="auto5">{{Cite journal |last=Bajwa |first=JS |date=January–March 2021 |title="If You Know Your Enemy{{nbsp}}..." — Why China did What it did in Ladakh? |url=http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/if-you-know-your-enemy-why-china-did-what-it-did-in-ladakh/ |journal=Indian Defence Review |publication-date=6 February 2021 |volume=36 |issue=1}}</ref>

A retired PLA major general explained that, "...{{nbsp}}improving combat readiness is now a strategic mission for the Chinese military{{nbsp}}... China can't copy the US' measure to improve combat capability through actual combat overseas since our national defence policy is defensive rather than offensive. Therefore, military training becomes extremely important for China."<ref name="auto5"/> China has since increased its military presence in the [[Tibetan Plateau]].<ref name="Chan-2020">{{Cite news |last=Chan |first=Minnie |date=4 June 2020 |title=China flexing military muscle in border dispute with India |work=South China Morning Post |url=https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3087494/china-india-dispute-highlights-both-sides-growing-military |url-status=live |access-date=4 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200604131622/https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3087494/china-india-dispute-highlights-both-sides-growing-military |archive-date=4 June 2020}}</ref> China has also been increasing its footprint with India's neighbours – Nepal, [[China–Sri Lanka relations|Sri Lanka]] and [[China–Pakistan relations|Pakistan]]; so from India having a monopoly in the region, China is now posing a direct challenge to New Delhi's influence in [[South Asia]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Abi-Habib |first=Maria |date=19 June 2020 |title=Will India Side With the West Against China? A Test Is at Hand |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/world/asia/india-china-border.html |access-date=20 June 2020 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

== Causes ==
[[File:1947 ROC claim line in Ladakh.jpg|thumb|right|260px|A 1947 map of [[Republic of China (1912–1949)|Republic of China]]. All the clashes of the 2020–21 skirmishes have taken place outside these boundaries in Indian territory.{{efn|Even though the map is of very low resolution, it is apparent that the [[Chip Chap River]], a headwater of the Shyok River is shown entirely within Ladakh, as are the [[Depsang Bulge]], [[Galwan River|Galwan Valley]], [[Chang Chenmo Valley]], the western half of the [[Pangong Lake]] and the [[Spanggur Lake]]. The Republic of China never claimed any of these territories. The present-day [[People's Republic of China]] expanded the territorial claims in 1960 and fought the [[Sino-Indian War|1962 war]] to enforce them.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Karackattu |first=Joe Thomas |year=2020 |title=The Corrosive Compromise of the Sino-Indian Border Management Framework: From Doklam to Galwan |journal=Asian Affairs |volume=51 |issue=3 |pages=590–604 |doi=10.1080/03068374.2020.1804726 |issn=0306-8374 |s2cid=222093756}}</ref>}}]]

[[File:Kashmir map.svg|thumb|260px|alt=Map of the Jammu and Kashmir and its various regions.|The [[List of territorial disputes|disputed territory]] of the former [[princely state]] of [[Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)|Jammu and Kashmir]] is administered by [[Pakistan-administered Kashmir|Pakistan]] (green), [[Indian-administered Kashmir|India]] (blue) and [[Aksai Chin|China]] (yellow).]]

Multiple reasons have been cited as the trigger for these skirmishes. According to [[Mitch McConnell]], US Senate Minority Leader, and [[Ashley Tellis]], senior fellow at the [[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]], one reason is China's territory grabbing technique, also referred to as '[[China's salami slicing|salami slicing]]', which involves encroaching upon small parts of enemy territory over a large period of time.<ref name="HindustanTimes-2020">{{Cite web |last=Sarkar |first=Shankhyaneel |date=6 June 2020 |title=China's 'salami-slicing tactics' displays disregard for India's efforts at peace |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/china-s-salami-slicing-tactics-displays-disregard-for-india-s-efforts-at-peace/story-ujHFW5zcwTbKiP7j0QghGL.html |access-date=25 June 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |agency=Press Trust of India}}</ref><ref name="NDTV-2020">{{Cite web |date=19 June 2020 |title=Chinese Army May Have Provoked Clash To 'Grab Indian Territory': US Senator |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/chinese-army-may-have-provoked-clash-to-grab-indian-territory-us-senator-2248685 |access-date=25 June 2020 |publisher=NDTV |agency=Press Trust of India}}</ref> In mid-June 2020, chairperson Urgain Chodon of [[Koyul]]–[[Demchok, Ladakh|Demchok]], stated that successive Indian governments (including the current [[Narendra Modi government]]) have neglected the border areas for decades and turned a "blind eye" to Chinese land grabbing in the region. According to her, India had failed in the protection of its borders, and even in 2020, all along the LAC, India had lost land.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Wallen |first=Joe |date=24 June 2020 |title=Modi is standing aside as China seizes our land, says furious BJP politician from border region |work=The Telegraph |publisher=Yahoo News |url=https://news.yahoo.com/modi-standing-aside-china-seizes-192644116.html |access-date=25 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Rashid |first=Hakeem Irfan |date=24 June 2020 |title=Successive govts have neglected border areas of Ladakh: Nyoma's BDC chair |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/successive-govts-have-neglected-border-areas-of-ladakh-nyomas-bdc-chair/articleshow/76538870.cms |access-date=25 June 2020}}</ref> Other local Ladakhi leaders also acknowledged similar incursions by Chinese forces in the region.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Dasgupta |first=Sravasti |date=28 June 2020 |title=Flagging Chinese incursions for long, Galwan flare-up was waiting to happen: Ladakh leaders |url=https://theprint.in/india/flagging-chinese-incursions-for-long-galwan-flare-up-was-waiting-to-happen-ladakh-leaders/449186/ |access-date=29 June 2020 |website=ThePrint}}</ref> Also in mid-June 2020, BJP member of Parliament from Arunachal Pradesh [[Tapir Gao]] acknowledged the presence of regular Chinese patrols inside north-east India as well.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pandey |first=Neelam |date=17 June 2020 |title=Chinese PLA patrolling in Arunachal, time for action on the border: BJP MP Tapir Gao |url=https://theprint.in/defence/chinese-pla-patrolling-in-arunachal-time-for-action-on-the-border-bjp-mp-tapir-gao/443248/ |access-date=3 September 2020 |website=ThePrint |language=en-US}}</ref>

MIT professor, [[Taylor Fravel]], said that the skirmishes were a response from China to the development of Indian infrastructure in Ladakh, particularly along the [[Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road]]. He added that it was a show of strength for China amidst the [[COVID-19 pandemic]], which had damaged the Chinese economy and its international reputation.<ref name="SinghS-2020f" /> According to Yun Sun, a China specialist at the [[Stimson Center]], China perceived India's road-building as a threat to its "territorial integrity" which it will not sacrifice for the sake of good relations with India.<ref>{{Cite news |date=30 June 2020 |title=China was surprised in Doklam, never thought India would challenge it: China expert Yun Sun |work=India Today |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/china-was-surprised-in-doklam-never-thought-india-would-challenge-it-china-scholar-yun-sun-1695672-2020-06-30 |quote="So, when the Chinese identified that India is building roads and other infrastructural projects in their region, their concern was how should they (China) respond. They felt India is stabbing China on the back{{nbsp}}... that India is putting China in an impossible position where either China responds aggressively and be seen as attacking India, or does nothing and actually end up losing territory," Yun Sun said, adding that understanding the Chinese motivation behind the recent moves is not very hard.}}</ref>

[[Lobsang Sangay]], President of the [[Tibetan government-in-exile|Tibetan-government-in-exile]], stated that China is raising border issues due to internal problems within China and the international pressure being exerted on China over COVID-19.<ref>{{Cite web |date=16 June 2020 |title=China raking border issue to curb internal issues, COVID-19 paranoia: Lobsang Sangay |url=https://www.thestatesman.com/cities/shimla/china-raking-border-issue-curb-internal-issues-covid-19-paranoia-lobsang-sangay-1502900612.html |access-date=18 June 2020 |website=The Statesman}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=17 June 2020 |title=LAC stand-off will go on unless Tibet issue is resolved, says exiled govt |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lac-stand-off-will-go-on-unless-tibet-issue-is-resolved-says-exiled-govt/story-svWkAdkXkpgOe9R5kKOtrL.html |access-date=18 June 2020 |website=Hindustan Times}}</ref> Jayadeva Ranade, former [[National Security Council (India)|National Security Advisory Board]] member, posited that China's current aggression in the region is to protect its assets and future plans in Ladakh and adjoining regions such as the [[China–Pakistan Economic Corridor]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sreevatsan |first=Ajai |date=18 June 2020 |title=Beijing is not going to withdraw its soldiers: Jayadeva Ranade |url=https://www.livemint.com/companies/people/beijing-is-not-going-to-withdraw-its-soldiers-jayadeva-ranade-11592503289806.html |access-date=24 June 2020 |website=Livemint}}</ref>

Wang Shida of [[China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations]] linked the current border tensions to India's decision to [[Abrogation of Article 370|abrogate Article 370]] and change the status of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019.<ref name="Krishnan-2020" /> Although, Pravin Sawhney agreed with Wang, he postulated that a parliamentary speech by [[Amit Shah]], the [[Minister of Home Affairs(India)|Minister of Home Affairs]], also could have irked China. In the speech, Shah had declared that [[Aksai Chin]], a disputed region administered by China, was part of the Indian-administered [[Ladakh Union Territory]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Sawhney |first=Pravin |date=10 June 2020 |title=Here's Why All's Not Well for India on the Ladakh Front |work=[[The Wire (India)]] |url=https://thewire.in/diplomacy/heres-why-alls-not-well-for-india-on-the-ladakh-front |access-date=15 June 2020}}</ref> Furthermore, the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019 prompted multiple senior Bharatiya Janata Party ministers, most recently in May 2020, to claim that all that now remained was for India to regain [[Gilgit-Baltistan]].<ref name="Wahid-2020">{{Cite news |last=Wahid |first=Siddiq |date=11 June 2020 |title=There is a Global Dimension to the India-China Confrontation in Ladakh |work=[[The Wire (India)]] |url=https://thewire.in/diplomacy/global-dimension-india-china-confrontation-in-ladakh |access-date=15 June 2020}}</ref> Indian diplomat [[Gautam Bambawale]] also agreed that New Delhi's moves related to Jammu and Kashmir irked Beijing.<ref name="Wahid-2020" />

Other analysts linked the skirmishes to India's growing alliance with the United States. Liu Zongyi, a South Asia specialist at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies told the ''[[Financial Times]]'' that "India has been active in many of US plans that target China". Tanvi Madan, author of ''Fateful Triangle'' (a book about the international relations between the US, India and China) stated that India thought that this was "signal from Beijing" to "limit" its relations with the US.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Kazmin |first1=Amy |last2=Weinland |first2=Don |date=9 June 2020 |title=Trump's embrace of Modi stokes India-China stand-off in Himalayas |url=https://www.ft.com/content/dd253671-ee10-4e51-b9c0-c3fa9c2134e4?list=intlhomepage |url-access=subscription |website=Financial Times}}</ref> [[Phunchok Stobdan]], a former diplomat of India, stated that "smaller powers like India and Australia, who have aligned with the US, are witnessing a more aggressive China".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Chaudhary |first=Archana |date=5 June 2020 |title=India's China standoff shows risks of getting too close to Donald Trump |work=The Economic Times |agency=Bloomberg |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/indias-china-standoff-shows-risks-of-getting-too-close-to-donald-trump/articleshow/76208093.cms}}</ref>

India's former ambassador to China, [[Ashok Kantha]] said that these skirmishes were part of a growing Chinese assertiveness in both the Indo-China border and the South China sea.<ref name="SinghS-2020f">{{Cite news |last=Singh |first=Sushant |date=26 May 2020 |title=Indian border infrastructure or Chinese assertiveness? Experts dissect what triggered China border moves |work=The Indian Express |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/china-india-line-of-actual-control-ladakh-6427647/}}</ref> [[Raja Mohan]], Director of the Institute of South Asian Studies at the [[National University of Singapore]], writes that the growing power imbalance between China and India is the main cause of the dispute, with everything else such as the location of the dispute or international ties of India, being mere detail.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Mohan |first=Raja |author-link=Raja Mohan |date=9 June 2020 |title=China now has the military power to alter territorial status quo |work=The Indian Express |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/india-china-ladakh-lac-border-dispute-c-raja-mohan-6449294/ |access-date=21 June 2020}}</ref> These skirmishes have also been linked by multiple people with the Chinese strategy of [[Five Fingers of Tibet]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Chari |first=Seshadri |date=12 June 2020 |title=70 yrs on, India's Tibet dilemma remains. But 4 ways Modi can achieve what Nehru couldn't |work=ThePrint |url=https://theprint.in/opinion/70-yrs-on-indias-tibet-dilemma-remains-but-4-ways-modi-can-achieve-what-nehru-couldnt/440055/ |access-date=20 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Chowdhury |first=Adhir Ranjan |date=17 June 2020 |title=Chinese intrusion in Ladakh has created a challenge that must be met |work=The Indian Express |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/resolve-and-prudence-india-china-border-dispute-galwan-valley-ladakh-6462309/ |access-date=20 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Siddiqui |first=Maha |date=18 June 2020 |title=Ladakh is the First Finger, China is Coming After All Five: Tibet Chief's Warning to India |publisher=[[News18]] |url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/ladakh-is-the-first-finger-china-is-coming-after-all-five-tibet-chiefs-warning-to-india-2675887.html |access-date=19 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Dorji |first=Tsewang |date=4 July 2020 |title=The Geo-strategic Importance Of Tibet: China's "Palm & Five-Fingers Strategy" |url=https://thetaiwantimes.com/the-geo-strategic-importance-of-tibet-chinas-palm-five-fingers-strategy/3405 |access-date=4 July 2020 |website=The Taiwan Times}}</ref>

== Order of battle ==
{{See also|Chinese order of battle in the 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes|Indian order of battle in the 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes}}
April 2020 onwards divisions from the Western Theatre Command of PLA's Ground Force, the [[4th Motorized Infantry Division (People's Republic of China)|4th (Highland) Motorised Infantry]] and [[6th Mechanized Infantry Division|6th (Highland) Mechanised Infantry]] Divisions, moved units towards the LAC in eastern Ladakh reinforcing the existing deployment. The divisions stayed in eastern Ladakh from May 2020 to February 2021 following which they rotated with the [[8th Motorized Infantry Division (People's Republic of China)|8th]] and the [[11th Motorized Infantry Division (People's Republic of China)|11th Motorised Divisions]].<ref name="Gokhale-2021b">{{Cite web |last=Gokhale |first=Nitin A. |date=27 April 2021 |title=Eastern Ladakh: Chinese Formations Undertaking Rotation |url=https://bharatshakti.in/eastern-ladakh-chinese-formations-undertaking-rotation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210427125544/https://bharatshakti.in/eastern-ladakh-chinese-formations-undertaking-rotation/ |archive-date=27 April 2021 |access-date=14 June 2021 |website=Bharat Shakti |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Bajwa-2020">{{Cite web |last=Bajwa |first=Mandeep Singh |date=2 August 2020 |title=Military Digest {{!}} Eastern Ladakh Sitrep: The 'Bottleneck' in Indo-China talks |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/military-digest-eastern-ladakh-sitrep-the-bottleneck-in-indo-china-talks-6535071/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200803055456/https://indianexpress.com/article/india/military-digest-eastern-ladakh-sitrep-the-bottleneck-in-indo-china-talks-6535071/ |archive-date=3 August 2020 |access-date=13 June 2021 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref> PLA Air Force and PLA Rocket Force deployed in support.<ref name="Bajwa-2020" />

Post Galwan, there has been an overall increase in India's deployment against China in all three sectors— the northern, central and eastern sectors.<ref>{{Cite news |date=14 June 2021 |title=One year post Galwan, Indian forces deeply entrenched along LAC |language=en |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/one-year-post-galwan-indian-forces-deeply-entrenched-along-lac-101623689060007.html |access-date=22 June 2021}}</ref> Prior deployment by India directed towards China included [[XIV Corps (India)|14 Corps]] based in Leh, [[XVII Corps (India)|17 Corps]] and [[XXXIII Corps (India)|33 Corps]] in Sikkim, and [[III Corps (India)|3 Corps]] and [[IV Corps (India)|4 Corps]] in the eastern sector.<ref name="Gokhale-2021">{{Cite web |last=Gokhale |first=Nitin A. |date=15 January 2021 |title=India to Allocate Three More Divisions to China Border |url=https://bharatshakti.in/india-to-allocate-three-more-divisions-to-china-border/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210115084619/https://bharatshakti.in/india-to-allocate-three-more-divisions-to-china-border/ |archive-date=15 January 2021 |access-date=22 June 2021 |website=Bharat Shakti |language=en-US}}</ref> Additions and changes have been made to this such as a proposed reorganising of the 14 Division, earmarked for fighting against Pakistan in the plains, into a mountain division for deployment in Himachal and Uttarakhand against China.<ref name="Gokhale-2021" /> India's paramilitary such as the [[Indo-Tibetan Border Police]] (ITBP) is deployed closer to the border at most locations, with the army holding line some kilometers behind them.<ref name=":PanXinmaoReport">{{Cite web |last=Patranobis |first=Sutirtho |date=24 February 2021 |editor-last=Mathur |editor-first=Sanya |title=Chinese report claims to have detailed knowledge of India's border deployment |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/chinese-report-claims-to-have-detailed-knowledge-of-india-s-border-deployment-101614170747060.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210224165253/https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/chinese-report-claims-to-have-detailed-knowledge-of-india-s-border-deployment-101614170747060.html |archive-date=24 February 2021 |access-date=22 June 2021 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref>

== Incidents ==
A June 2020 report from the [[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]] said that there have been simultaneous efforts by China to occupy land at multiple locations along the Sino-Indian border.<ref name="Tellis-2020" /> Standoffs, skirmishes and transgressions have taken place at [[Pangong Tso]], [[Kugrang River|Kugrang Valley]] (referred to as "[[Jianan Pass|Hot Springs]]" and "[[Gogra, Ladakh|Gogra]]"), [[Galwan Valley]], the [[Depsang Bulge]] area, [[Gurung Hill]] and [[Rechin La|Reqin La]] in Ladakh; and at one location in Sikkim.<ref name="Tellis-2020">{{Cite report |url=https://carnegieendowment.org/files/Tellis_Himalayan-Border-Standoffs.pdf |title=Hustling in the Himalayas: The Sino-Indian Border Confrontation |last=Tellis |first=Ashley J. |date=June 2020 |quote=These efforts to bring new territorial enclaves under Chinese control are occurring simultaneously at several different locations, such as on the northern bank of the Pangong Tso, at Hot Springs, and in the Galwan Valley, places that all lie astride the LAC in eastern Ladakh |author-link=Ashley J. Tellis |access-date=29 June 2020 |website=Carnegie Endowment for International Peace}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=6 August 2020 |title=Defence Ministry admits transgressions by Chinese Army in Eastern Ladakh |url=http://businessworld.in/article/Defence-Ministry-admits-transgressions-by-Chinese-Army-in-Eastern-Ladakh/06-08-2020-305595 |access-date=6 August 2020 |website=BW Businessworld |language=en}}</ref> Amid de-escalatory talks in Ladakh, on 29 June 2020, China, opened a new front in the border dispute by claiming, for the first time, that [[Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary]] is located in the disputed territory of Bhutan's [[Trashigang District]].{{efn|Sakteng does not have any contiguous border with China, and is only accessible through Bhutanese or Indian territory previously claimed by China.}}<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Hua |first1=Sha |last2=Roy |first2=Rajesh |date=6 July 2020 |title=China Pulls Back From One Disputed Border, Makes New Claims on Another: After deadly clash with India, Beijing asserts right to territory in Bhutan |work=The Wall Street Journal |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-pulls-back-from-one-disputed-border-makes-new-claims-on-another-11594052370 |access-date=7 July 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Patranobis |first=Sutirtho |date=6 July 2020 |title=China's new boundary dispute with Bhutan targets India's Arunachal Pradesh |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/china-s-bhutan-move-aimed-at-india/story-JS0A3gx4FQVlwSrZ4NPfgI.html |access-date=7 July 2020}}</ref> 

During late July and early August, reports emerged of PLA strengthening positions and accumulating troops at more locations other than Ladakh such as Uttarakhand's [[Lipulekh Pass]], parts of [[North Sikkim district|north Sikkim]], and [[Arunachal Pradesh]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gupta |first=Shishir |date=1 August 2020 |title=China moves PLA battalion across India's Lipulekh Pass. It's a signal |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/china-moves-pla-battalion-across-india-s-lipulekh-pass-it-s-a-signal/story-hnIx2metf8n3wTGZ63JEDO.html |access-date=1 August 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref> Following the Galwan valley clash, India deployed a warship to the [[South China Sea]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=31 August 2020 |title=Indian Navy Sent Warship To South China Sea After Ladakh Clash: Report |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-navy-sent-warship-to-south-china-sea-after-ladakh-clash-report-2287648 |access-date=31 August 2020 |website=NDTV}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Negi |first=Manjeet Singh |date=30 August 2020 |title=Indian Navy deploys warship in South China Sea 2 months after Galwan clash |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/indian-navy-deploys-warship-in-south-china-sea-2-months-after-galwan-clash-1716779-2020-08-30 |access-date=31 August 2020 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref> The first border clash reported in 2021 was on 20 January, referred to as a minor border clash in Sikkim.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kaushik |first=Krishn |date=26 January 2021 |title=India, China troops clash in Sikkim; resolved, says Army |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-china-troops-clash-in-sikkim-resolved-says-army-7161620/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126051344/https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-china-troops-clash-in-sikkim-resolved-says-army-7161620/ |archive-date=26 January 2021 |access-date=28 January 2021 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref>

=== Pangong Tso ===
{{OSM Location map
| coord = {{coord|33.7346|78.80}}   <!-- Map center -->
| float = right
| zoom = 12
| width = 500
| height = 200
| caption = {{center|Northern shore of the Pangong Lake<ref name="Pangong border">{{Cite web |year=1962 |editor-last=India, Ministry of External Affairs |title=Report of the Officials of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AP4ruQEACAAJ |publisher=Government of India Press}}, {{Cite report |url=http://www.archieve.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/ORC_01-32_Part1.pdf |title=Chinese Report, Part 1 |pages=4–5}}<br />
The location and terrain features of this traditional customary boundary line are now described as follows in three sectors, western, middle and eastern.{{nbsp}}... From Ane Pass southwards, the boundary line runs along the mountain ridge and passes through peak 6,127 (approximately 78° 46' E, 38° 50' N) [''sic''] and then southwards to the northern bank of the Pangong Lake' (approximately '''78° 49' E, 33° 44' N'''). It crosses this lake and reaches its southern bank at approximately '''78° 43' E, 33° 40' N'''. Then it goes in a south-easterly direction along the watershed dividing the Tongada River and the streams flowing into the Spanggur Lake until it reaches Mount Sajum.</ref><br />with "fingers" – mountain spurs jutting into the lake<ref name="Panag fingers">{{Cite web |last=Lt Gen [[Harcharanjit Singh Panag|HS Panag]] (Retd) |date=4 June 2020 |title=India's Fingers have come under Chinese boots. Denial won't help us |url=https://theprint.in/opinion/indias-fingers-have-come-under-chinese-boots-denial-wont-help-us/435145/ |website=The Print}}</ref>{{efn|The LAC displayed is that marked by the OpenStreetMap editors, said to reflect the Chinese maps.}}}}
| nolabels = 1
| map-data = 
<!-- | auto-caption = 0 -->
<!-- Finger 1 -->
| mark-coord1 = {{coord|33.7558|78.7002}}
| shape1 = n-circle
| shape-color1 = hard red
| shape-outline1 = white
| mark-size1 = 16
| mark-title1 = Finger 1
<!-- Finger 2 -->
| mark-coord2 = {{coord|33.7501|78.7193}}
| shape2 = n-circle
| shape-color2 = hard red
| shape-outline2 = white
| mark-size2 = 16
| mark-title2 = Finger 2
<!-- Finger 3 -->
| mark-coord3 = {{coord|33.7339|78.7446}}
| shape3 = n-circle
| shape-color3 = hard red
| shape-outline3 = white
| mark-size3 = 16
| mark-title3 = Finger 3
<!-- Finger 4 -->
| mark-coord4 = {{coord|33.7196|78.7635}}
| shape4 = n-circle
| shape-color4 = hard red
| shape-outline4 = white
| mark-size4 = 16
| mark-title4 = Finger 4
<!-- Finger 5 -->
| mark-coord5 = {{coord|33.721|78.7806}}
| shape5 = n-circle
| shape-color5 = hard red
| shape-outline5 = white
| mark-size5 = 16
| mark-title5 = Finger 5
<!-- Finger 6 -->
| mark-coord6 = {{coord|33.7255|78.7947}}
| shape6 = n-circle
| shape-color6 = hard red
| shape-outline6 = white
| mark-size6 = 16
| mark-title6 = Finger 6
<!-- Finger 7 -->
| mark-coord7 = {{coord|33.7358|78.8061}}
| shape7 = n-circle
| shape-color7 = hard red
| shape-outline7 = white
| mark-size7 = 16
| mark-title7 = Finger 7
<!-- Finger 8 -->
| mark-coord8 = {{coord|33.7398|78.8187}}
| shape8 = n-circle
| shape-color8 = hard red
| shape-outline8 = white
| mark-size8 = 16
| mark-title8 = Finger 8
<!-- Chinese border point -->
| mark-coord9 = {{coord|33|44|N|78|49|E}}
| mark9 = Pin location context.svg
| mark-size9 = 14
| shape9 = 
| shape-color9 = yellow
| shape-outline9 = yellow
| label9 = Traditional customary |labela9 = boundary of China |labelb9 = declared 1960
| label-size9 = 10
| label-color9 = black
| label-pos9 = bottom |label-offset-x9 = 0 |label-offset-y9 = 0
| mark-title9 = Chinese border point
| mark-image9 =
| mark-description9 = Declared in the ''Report of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question'', 1960
<!-- Indian border post -->
| mark-coord10 = {{coord|33.7406|78.7507}}
| mark10 = Red pog.svg
| mark-size10 = 4
| label10 = Indian post
| label-size10 = 10
| label-color10 = gray
| label-pos10 = top |label-offset-x10 = -14 |label-offset-y10 = 0
| mark-title10 = [[Indo-Tibetan Border Police|ITBP]] post
| mark-image10 =
| mark-description10 = Major [[Dhan Singh Thapa]] post
<!-- Indian border post -->
| mark-coord11 = {{coord|33.74039|78.87653}}
| mark11 = Red pog.svg
| mark-size11 = 4
| label11 = Chinese post |labela11 = on Sirijap
| label-size11 = 10
| label-color11 = gray
| label-pos11 = top |label-offset-x11 = -14 |label-offset-y11 = 0
| mark-title11 = Chinese post on Sirijap
| mark-image11 =
| mark-description11 = 
<!-- Sirijap -->
| mark-coord12 = {{coord|33.74|78.845}} <!-- 33.743|78.8269 -->
| mark12 = Red pog.svg
| mark-size12 = 8
| label12 = Sirijap
| shape12 = 
| shape-color12 = hard red
| shape-outline12 = hard red
| label-size12 = 10
| label-color12 = gray
| label-pos12 = top |label-offset-x12 = -14 |label-offset-y12 = 0
| mark-title12 = Sirijap
| mark-image12 =
| mark-description12 = Valley between fingers
<!-- Khurnak Fort -->
| mark-coord13 = {{coord|33.7666610|78.9877208}}
| mark13 = Red pog.svg
| mark-size13 = 4
| label13 = Khurnak Fort
| label-size13 = 10
| label-color13 = gray
| label-pos13 = bottom |label-offset-x13 = 0 |label-offset-y13 = 0
| mark-title13 = [[Khurnak Fort]]
| mark-image13 =
| mark-description13 = Ruined fort that serves as a landmark; Possible Chinese post here
<!-- Chinese border point -->
| mark-coord17 = {{coord|33|40|N|78|43|E}}
| mark17 = Pin location context.svg
| mark-size17 = 14
| shape17 = 
| shape-color17 = yellow
| shape-outline17 = yellow
| label17 = Traditional customary |labela17 = boundary of China |labelb17 = declared 1960
| label-size17 = 10
| label-color17 = black
| label-pos17 = bottom |label-offset-x17 = 0 |label-offset-y17 = 0
| mark-title17 = Chinese border point
| mark-image17 =
| mark-description17 = Declared in the ''Report of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question'', 1960
<!-- Merak -->
| mark-coord18 = {{coord|33.8002441|78.5905698}}
| mark18 = Red pog.svg
| mark-size18 = 4
| label18 = Merak
| label-size18 = 12
| label-color18 = gray
| label-pos18 = left |label-offset-x18 = 0 |label-offset-y18 = 0
| mark-title18 = Merak
| mark-image18 =
| mark-description18 =
<!-- Spangmik -->
| mark-coord19 = {{coord|33.9076911|78.4573431}}
| mark19 = Red pog.svg
| mark-size19 = 4
| label19 = Spangmik
| label-size19 = 12
| label-color19 = gray
| label-pos19 = left |label-offset-x19 = 0 |label-offset-y19 = 0
| mark-title19 = Spangmik
| mark-image19 =
| mark-description19 =
<!-- Miscellaneous -->
<!-- Changlung Lungpa -->
| mark-coord20 = {{coord|33.8053|78.9769}}
| mark20 = AS-rzeka-icon.svg
| mark-size20 = 0
| label20 = Changlung |labela20 = Lungpa
| label-size20 = 10
| label-color20 = hard blue
| label-pos20 = right |label-offset-x20 = 0 |label-offset-y20 = -5
| mark-title20 = Changlung Lungpa
| mark-image20 =
| mark-description20 = The Indian claim lines runs in this valley
<!-- Ane La-->
| mark-coord24 = {{coord|33.9703158|78.7388067}}
| mark24 = Mountain pass 12x12 4.svg
| mark-size24 = 10
| shape24 = 
| shape-color24 = yellow
| shape-outline24 = yellow
| label24 = Ane La |labela24 = Boundary of China |labelb24 = declared 1960
| label-size24 = 10
| label-color24 = black
| label-pos24 = right |label-offset-x24 = 2 |label-offset-y24 = -10
| mark-title24 = Chinese border point
| mark-image24 =
| mark-description24 = Declared in the ''Report of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question'', 1960
<!-- Chinese border point near Ane La-->
| mark-coord25 = {{coord|33|50|N|78|46|E}}
| mark25 = Pin location context.svg
| mark-size25 = 14
| shape25 = 
| shape-color25 = yellow
| shape-outline25 = yellow
| label25 = Traditional customary |labela25 = boundary of China |labelb25 = declared 1960
| label-size25 = 10
| label-color25 = black
| label-pos25 = right |label-offset-x25 = 4 |label-offset-y25 = -10
| mark-title25 = Chinese border point
| mark-image25 =
| mark-description25 = Declared in the ''Report of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question'', 1960
<!-- Bridge-->
| label26 = Bridge
| mark-title26 = Bridge
| mark-description26 = Bridge
| mark-coord26 = {{coord|33.74829|79.02470}}
| label-size26 = 10
| label-color26 = black
| label-pos26 = bottom |label-offset-x26 = 0 |label-offset-y26 = 0
| mark26 = Pin location context.svg
| mark-size26 = 14
| mark-image26 =
| shape26 = 
| shape-color26 = black
| shape-outline26 = black
}}
[[File:South-Pangong-LSIB-vs-Chinese-claims.png|thumb|right|250px|LAC on the southern shore of the Pangong Lake; the line marked by the US Office of Geographer in blue, the line marked by OpenStreetMap in green.]]
[[File:Ladakh LAC Pangong Tso Spanggur Tso Landmarks.jpg|right|thumb|333x333px|Fingers 1 to 8 visible on the north bank of [[Pangong Tso]]. On the south bank is [[Gurung Hill]] with features Helmet, Black Top, Table Top, Camel's Top. [[Chushul]], Chushul/Maldo [[Border Personnel Meeting point|BPM point]] and airstrip, Magar Hill, Rechin La, [[Rezang La]], [[Rezang La|Rezangla War Memorial]], [[Spanggur Gap]] and [[Spanggur Tso]], visible. Chinese and Indian claim lines (updated to 1992) marked.{{Efn|From map: "Boundary representation is not necessarily authoritative. Alignment of all boundaries is approximate."|name=|group=}}<ref name="Malhotra-2003">{{Cite book |last=Malhotra |first=A. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rWKy6DOTO9YC |title=Trishul: Ladakh And Kargil 1947–1993 |date=2003 |publisher=Lancer Publishers |isbn=978-81-7062-296-3 |pages=64 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Bhalla-2020">{{Cite web |last=Bhalla |first=Abhishek |date=1 September 2020 |title=Indian Army's control of hilltops on south bank of Pangong Lake irks China |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/indian-army-control-hilltops-south-bank-pangong-lake-china-1717411-2020-09-01 |access-date=5 September 2020 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=31 August 2020 |title=India, China in Another Stand-Off in Eastern Ladakh as PLA Intrudes Into Pangong Tso Southern Bank |url=https://thewire.in/security/india-china-army-clash-lac-pangong-tso |access-date=5 September 2020 |website=The Wire}}</ref>]]

On 5 May, the first standoff began as a clash between Indian{{efn|The Indian soldiers involved in the clash were from 17 [[Kumaon Regiment]].<ref name="names">{{Cite news |last=Aroor |first=Shiv |author-link=Shiv Aroor |date=24 June 2020 |title=Meet the 5 Ladakh troops commended by Army chief Gen Naravane today for fighting off Chinese |work=India Today |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/meet-the-5-ladakh-troops-commended-by-army-chief-gen-naravane-today-for-fighting-off-chinese-1692344-2020-06-24 |access-date=1 July 2020}}</ref>}} and Chinese soldiers at a beach of [[Pangong Tso]], a lake shared between India and Tibet, China, with the Line of Actual Control (LAC) passing through it.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Sharma |first=Kiran |date=28 May 2020 |title=India and China face off along disputed Himalayan border |work=[[The Nikkei]] |url=https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/India-and-China-face-off-along-disputed-Himalayan-border |access-date=28 May 2020}}</ref><ref name="SinghS-2020a">{{Cite news |last=Singh |first=Sushant |date=22 May 2020 |title=India-China conflict in Ladakh: The importance of Pangong Tso lake |work=The Indian Express |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/india-china-conflict-in-ladakh-the-importance-of-the-pangong-tso-lake-6419377/ |access-date=27 May 2020}}</ref> A video showed soldiers from both nations engaging in fistfights and stone-pelting along the LAC.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Khalid |first=Saif |date=29 May 2020 |title='All-out combat' feared as India, China engage in border standoff |publisher=Al Jazeera |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/05/tense-india-china-standoff-himalayan-border-escalate-200527120501581.html |access-date=28 May 2020}}</ref> On 10/11 May, another clash took place.<ref name="Bhaumik-2020">{{Cite news |last=Bhaumik |first=Subir |date=11 May 2020 |title=Sikkim & Ladakh face-offs: China ups ante along India-Tibet border |work=[[The Quint]] |url=https://www.thequint.com/news/india/sikkim-and-ladakh-face-offs-china-ups-ante-along-india-tibet-border |access-date=12 May 2020}}</ref> A number of soldiers on both sides had sustained injuries. Indian media reported that around 72 Indian soldiers were injured in the confrontation at Pangong Tso, and some had to be flown to hospitals in Leh, Chandi Mandir and Delhi.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Roy |first=Sukanya |date=27 May 2020 |title=All you need to know about India-China stand-off in Ladakh |work=[[Business Standard]] |url=https://www.business-standard.com/podcast/current-affairs/all-you-need-to-know-about-india-china-stand-off-in-ladakh-120052701358_1.html |access-date=5 June 2020}}</ref> According to ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' and other sources, China captured {{Convert|60|sqkm|sqmi|abbr=}} of Indian-patrolled territory between May and June 2020.<ref name="TD Telegraph1">{{Cite news |last1=Wallen |first1=Joe |last2=Yan |first2=Sophia |last3=Farmer |first3=Ben |date=12 June 2020 |title=China annexes 60 square km of India in Ladakh as simmering tensions erupt between two superpowers |work=The Telegraph |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/12/china-annexes-60-square-km-india-ladakh-simmering-tensions-erupt/ |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=17 June 2020 |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/12/china-annexes-60-square-km-india-ladakh-simmering-tensions-erupt/ |archive-date=12 January 2022 |quote="A total of forty square kilometres were occupied at Pangong Tso and twenty square kilometres at Galwan River, with smaller incursions at Hot Springs and Demchok, a senior Indian Army source told the Telegraph."}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Shukla |first=Ajai |author-link=Ajai Shukla |date=8 June 2020 |title=China has captured 60 sq km of Indian land! |work=Rediff |agency=Business Standard |url=https://www.rediff.com/news/special/china-has-captured-60-sq-km-of-indian-land/20200608.htm |access-date=17 June 2020}}</ref><ref name="BBC News">{{Cite news |last=Biswas |first=Soutik |date=16 June 2020 |title=An extraordinary escalation 'using rocks and clubs' |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53071913 |access-date=17 June 2020}}</ref> By the end of August it was reported that, according to the intelligence inputs given to the Indian Central Government, China has occupied {{Convert|65|sqkm|sqmi|abbr=}} in this area.<ref name="China occupied area">{{Cite news |last=Singh |first=Vijaita |date=31 August 2020 |title=China controls 1,000 sq. km of area in Ladakh, say intelligence inputs |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/china-controls-1000-sq-km-of-area-in-ladakh-say-intelligence-inputs/article32490453.ece?homepage=true |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=31 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200907032234/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/china-controls-1000-sq-km-of-area-in-ladakh-say-intelligence-inputs/article32490453.ece?homepage=true |archive-date=7 September 2020}}</ref>

By 27 June, China was reported to have increased military presence on both the northern and southern banks of Pangong Tso, strengthened their positions near Finger 4 (contrary to what the status quo was in April), and had even started construction of a helipad, bunkers and [[Pillbox (military)|pillboxes]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Singh |first=Sushant |date=27 June 2020 |title=Chinese building helipad in Pangong Tso, massing troops on the southern bank of lake |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/chinese-building-helipad-in-pangong-tso-massing-troops-on-southern-bank-of-lake-6478087/ |access-date=27 June 2020 |website=The Indian Express}}</ref>  Satellite imagery from between 12 and 26 June, by ''[[Planet Labs]]'' shows that the Chinese army increased infrastructure between Finger 4 and 5 on a massive scale, which includes tents, trenches, water tanks and stationed equipment and vehicles along with some camouflaged structures. The ''Planet Labs'' imagery also showed terrain inscribed with the Mandarin Chinese name of China, ''[[Names of China#Zhongguo|Zhongguo]]'', along with the present-day map of China on the shore of the lake between Finger 4 and 5.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Kumar |first=Ankit |date=29 June 2020 |title=Carved Maps, Ancient Names, Additional build Up: A Close Up of Chinese Posturing at Pangong Tso |work=India Today |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ladakh-pangong-tso-china-build-up-infrastructure-satellite-imagery-india-china-stand-off-1695271-2020-06-29 |access-date=5 July 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Som |first=Vishnu |date=30 June 2020 |title=Chinese Inscribe Huge Symbol, Map Onto Disputed Territory In Pangong |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/chinese-soldiers-inscribe-massive-symbol-map-onto-disputed-territory-in-pangong-2254287 |access-date=26 August 2020 |website=NDTV}}</ref> 

Both countries have multiple high powered boats for patrolling the Pangong Lake which is 13,900 feet above sea level. While the Indian Army already had multiple boat patrolling teams stationed, the [[Indian Navy]], in July 2020, was called in to match the presence of the Chinese [[Type 928 assault boat|Type 928 B vessels]] at the lake.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Gupta |first=Shishir |date=1 July 2020 |title=India sending high-powered boats to match heavier Chinese vessels while patrolling Ladakh lake |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-sending-high-powered-boats-to-match-heavier-chinese-vessels-while-patrolling-ladakh-lake/story-FZSNWwepM10bzGg0CoXGIJ.html |access-date=2 July 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2 July 2020 |title=LAC face-off: High-speed interceptor boats being sent to Pangong lake |work=The Times of India |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/high-speed-interceptor-boats-being-sent-to-pangong-lake/articleshow/76739598.cms |access-date=2 July 2020}}</ref>  In the first week of September, according to Indian media reports citing a government official, "100 to 200 shots" were fired by both sides as "warning shots" on the north bank of Pangong Lake.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Subramanian |first1=Nirupama |last2=Kaushik |first2=Krishn |date=16 September 2020 |title=Before Moscow pact, Indian and Chinese troops fired 100–200 rounds on Pangong north bank |work=The Indian Express |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/before-russia-pact-indian-chinese-troops-fired-100-200-rounds-on-pangong-north-bank-6597650/ |access-date=16 September 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Som |first=Vishnu |date=16 September 2020 |title=India, China Fired 100–200 'Warning Shots' At Pangong In Early September |work=NDTV |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-chinese-soldiers-fired-100-200-rounds-of-warning-shots-on-north-bank-of-pangong-lake-in-early-september-sources-2296084 |access-date=16 September 2020}}</ref>

=== Chushul sector ===
On 29–30 August, the skirmishes expanded to the southern shore of Pangong Tso near the Ladakhi village of [[Chushul]].<ref name="Gettleman-2020" /> An Indian Army spokesperson said that the PLA had made provocative military movements on the night of 29/30 August along the southern bank of Pangong Tso and that they were pre-empted by an Indian response which quickly moved to occupy higher terrain in a defensive move without any violence occurring.{{efn|Reports suggest that India's [[Special Frontier Force]] were part of the events; the SFF consisted of Tibetan resistance fighters, and now Tibetans refugees and Gorkhas.<ref>{{Cite web |date=1 September 2020 |title=The Special Frontier Force: Tibetan refugees, once trained with US help |url=https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2020/09/01/special-frontier-force-tibetan-refugees-once-trained-with-us-help.html |access-date=1 September 2020 |website=The Week |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Singh |first=Man Aman |date=1 September 2020 |title=Explained: What is the Special Frontier Force or Vikas Battalion? |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/what-is-special-frontier-force-vikas-battalion-6578568/ |access-date=1 September 2020 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref> The circumstances surrounding the death of the SFF Company leader Nyima Tenzin are unknown.<ref>{{Cite news |date=4 September 2020 |title=Tibetan Soldier's Death in Pangong Lake Episode Brings India's Top-Secret Guerrilla Regiment to Fore |work=News18 |url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/tibetan-soldierss-death-in-pangong-lake-episode-brings-indias-top-secret-guerrilla-regiment-to-fore-2848109.html |access-date=5 September 2020}}</ref> Some reports suggest he was killed by a landmine with one other jawan also being injured.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Gelek |first1=Lobsang |last2=Whong |first2=Eugene |last3=Dickyi |first3=Tenzin |date=1 September 2020 |title=Tibetan Soldier in Indian Army Killed in Weekend Incident at Contested Border with China |work=Radio Free Asia |issue=RFA's Tibetan Service |url=https://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/sff-09012020195719.html |access-date=5 September 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=1 September 2020 |title=Despite Chinese cameras and sensors, Indian troops managed to beat PLA in occupying height |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/despite-chinese-cameras-and-sensors-indian-troops-managed-to-beat-pla-in-occupying-height/story-Gw4sfjLvYX09hyUU7vag9O.html |access-date=5 September 2020}}</ref>}}<ref name="Hindustan-31">{{Cite web |last=Singh |first=Rahul |date=31 August 2020 |title=Forget disengagement, China opens new front along LAC |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/forget-disengagement-china-opens-new-front-along-lac/story-cu2n1gHjqDR97Nh733UGsN.html |access-date=31 August 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref><ref name="IT-31">{{Cite web |last=Pandit |first=Rajat |date=31 August 2020 |title=India China border news: Fresh clashes between Indian, Chinese troops at Pangong Tso |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/lac-face-off-fresh-clashes-between-india-china-troops-at-pangong-tso/articleshow/77845818.cms |access-date=31 August 2020 |website=The Times of India |language=en}}</ref><ref name="SCMP-31">{{Cite news |last1=Shi |first1=Jiangtao |last2=Purohit |first2=Kunal |date=1 September 2020 |title=China-India border dispute: Beijing doubles down on claims Indian troops 'violated consensus' |publisher=South China Morning Post |url=https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3099794/china-india-border-dispute-beijing-doubles-down-claims-indian |access-date=3 September 2020}}</ref> The Indian Army repositioned its troops in the area as a precaution to prevent any future intrusion by the PLA.<ref name="Chushul Hindu">{{Cite news |last1=Peri |first1=Dinakar |last2=Krishnan |first2=Ananth |date=31 August 2020 |title=Thwarted aggressive moves by China at South Bank of Pangong Tso: Army |language=en |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/thwarted-aggressive-moves-at-pangong-tso-by-china-army/article32484526.ece?homepage=true |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=31 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831134737/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/thwarted-aggressive-moves-at-pangong-tso-by-china-army/article32484526.ece?homepage=true |archive-date=31 August 2020}}</ref> The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman [[Zhao Lijian]] denied any intrusion by PLA into Indian territory. Zhang Shuili, the [[Western Theater Command]] spokesman, accused Indian military of provocation and violating China's territorial sovereignty.<ref name="nyt">{{Cite web |last1=Gettleman |first1=Jeffrey |last2=Yasir |first2=Sameer |last3=Kumar |first3=Hari |date=31 August 2020 |title=India and China Face Off Again at Border as Troops Move In |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/31/world/asia/india-china-troops-border.html |access-date=1 September 2020 |website=The New York Times |language=en}}</ref> 

A brigade commander-level flag meeting was called to resolve issues.<ref name="Chaturvedi">{{Cite news |last=Chaturvedi |first=Amit |date=31 August 2020 |title='Provocative': India lashes out at new Chinese attempt to alter status quo near Pangong Tso |work=The Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/china-s-pla-troops-carry-out-provocative-military-movements-near-pangong-tso-to-change-status-quo-says-army/story-603TodUqMIEFpQKrMlHi7I.html |access-date=31 August 2020}}</ref> By 3 September 2020, Indian media reported that Indian troops had occupied many heights on the south bank of Pangong Tso. The heights mentioned include [[Rezang La]], Reqin La, Black Top, Hanan, Helmet, [[Gurung Hill]], Gorkha Hill and Magar Hill.<ref name="Dutta-2020">{{Cite news |last=Dutta |first=Amrita Nayak |date=3 September 2020 |title=Army now holding 30 dominating heights, earlier unoccupied, on southern bank of Pangong Tso |work=ThePrint |url=https://theprint.in/defence/army-now-holding-30-dominating-heights-earlier-unoccupied-on-southern-bank-of-pangong-tso/495077/ |access-date=8 September 2020}}</ref> Some of these heights are in the grey zone of the LAC and overlook Chinese camps.<ref name="Sagar-2020">{{Cite web |last=Sagar |first=Pradip R |date=2 September 2020 |title=India controls dominating heights in Chushul sector |url=https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2020/09/02/india-now-controls-dominating-heights-in-chushul-sector.html |access-date=8 September 2020 |website=The Week |language=en}}</ref>

On 4 September 2020, during the high-level meeting between China and India in Moscow, aggressive posturing was reported from Rechin La in the Chushul sector. PLA troops were also seen to be moving an anti-aircraft gun to Black Top.<ref name="HindustanTimes-2020d" /> On 7 September 2020 at around 6:15 pm PLA troops tried approaching Indian positions at Mukhpari, as per Indian reports.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Parashar |first=Sachin |date=9 September 2020 |title=LAC on razor's edge, both India and China register protest |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/lac-on-razor-edge-both-india-and-china-register-protest/articleshow/78006201.cms |access-date=9 September 2020 |website=The Times of India |language=en}}</ref> Photos of PLA soldiers carrying spears, machete and rifles were released; this was the first publicly released photographic evidence of Chinese troops using such weapons.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Som |first=Vishnu |date=8 September 2020 |title=Chinese Soldiers With Spears Approached Indian Positions, Told To Back Off |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/exclusive-photos-of-chinese-soldiers-with-spears-near-indian-positions-2292409 |access-date=9 September 2020 |website=NDTV}}</ref> Indian soldiers who controlled the heights here used floodlights and megaphones to dissuade approaching PLA troops. Indian reports stated that it was then that PLA troops fired 10 – 15 rounds. However a spokesperson of the PLA claimed that Indian troops fired warning shots at the Chinese troops. The PLA Western Theatre Command spokesperson also claimed the Indian Army had crossed the LAC to enter the "Shenpao mountain region".<ref>{{Cite web |date=8 September 2020 |title=PLA 'takes countermeasures' after shots fired at China-India border |url=http://en.people.cn/n3/2020/0908/c90000-9757976.html |access-date=8 September 2020 |website=People's Daily Online}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=8 September 2020 |title=China says Indian troops fired 'provocative' shots |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-54067400 |access-date=8 September 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Som |first=Vishnu |date=8 September 2020 |editor-last=Sanyal |editor-first=Anindita |title=Indian Soldiers Fired Warning Shots At Bank Of Pangong Lake, Claims China |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-soldiers-fired-warning-shots-at-line-of-actual-control-claims-china-2291960 |access-date=8 September 2020 |website=NDTV}}</ref> 

On 8 September both India and China blamed each other for firing warning shots.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Ellis-Petersen |first=Hannah |date=8 September 2020 |title=China and India accuse each other of opening fire as border tensions rise |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/08/china-india-border-soldiers-pangong-lake |access-date=8 September 2020 |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=8 September 2020 |title=India, China Trade Charges of Firing Warning Shots Along Border |language=en |work=Bloomberg |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-08/china-accuses-india-of-sparking-fresh-skirmish-in-border-dispute |access-date=8 September 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Banerjee |first=Ajay |date=8 September 2020 |title=India, China blame each other for 'firing shots' along LAC |url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/lac-tense-as-china-claims-shots-fired-by-indian-army-138153 |access-date=8 September 2020 |website=Tribune India |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Kaushik |first=Krishn |date=8 September 2020 |title=Did not cross LAC or fire shots, China trying to provocate, escalate, says Army |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-china-firing-pangong-ladakh-6587592/ |access-date=9 September 2020 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref> This is the first time in 45 years, since 1975 when Chinese opened fire on an [[Assam Rifles]] patrol in [[Tulung La]] in Arunachal Pradesh, that shots have been fired between India and China.<ref name="Kaushik-2020c">{{Cite web |last=Kaushik |first=Krishn |date=9 September 2020 |title=First time in 45 years, shots fired along LAC as troops foil China's bid to take a key height |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/first-time-in-45-years-shots-fired-along-lac-as-troops-foil-chinas-bid-to-take-a-key-height-6588658/ |access-date=9 September 2020 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref> Indian media also reported that Indian troops fired warning shots at the PLA on 30 August to prevent them from changing the status quo on the southern bank on Pangong Tso.<ref name="SinghV-2020b" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Gupta |first=Shishir |date=8 September 2020 |title=Face-off at Rechin La leads to scuffle with aggressive PLA. Situation tense but ground commanders talking |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/face-off-at-rechin-la-leads-to-scuffle-with-aggressive-pla-situation-tense-but-ground-commanders-talking/story-hyXXzERKesl1HlBBMyfbEO.html |access-date=11 September 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref> Indian troops have put up barbed wire obstacles around positions.<ref>{{Cite news |date=10 September 2020 |title=Indian Army warns Chinese troops against intrusion attempts, puts up barbed wires at LAC |work=The Statesman |url=https://www.thestatesman.com/india/indian-army-warns-chinese-troops-against-intrusion-attempts-puts-up-barbed-wires-at-lac-1502922993.html#:~:text=Indian%20Army%20has%20set%20up,their%20position%20at%20the%20LAC. |access-date=11 September 2020}}</ref>

Indian government sources denied occupying the features Helmet Top and Black Top. They stated that "any trajectory" was possible in going forward.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Som |first=Vishnu |date=September 10, 2020 |title="Any Trajectory" Possible In India-China Stand-Off, Talks Critical: Sources |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-will-retaliate-if-its-defences-on-heights-are-breached-top-sources-2292908 |access-date=2023-03-26 |website=NDTV.com}}</ref>

=== Sikkim ===
According to Indian media reports, on 10 May, there was a minor skirmish between Indian and Chinese troops in Muguthang, Naku La, Sikkim. The incident involved a brawl between scores of soldiers, with opposing sides also throwing stones at one another.<ref name="AFP" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Peri |first=Dinakar |date=10 May 2020 |title=India, China troops face off at Naku La in Sikkim, several injured |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-china-troops-face-off-at-naku-la-in-sikkim-several-injured/article31548893.ece |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=10 May 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200510125559/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-china-troops-face-off-at-naku-la-in-sikkim-several-injured/article31548893.ece |archive-date=10 May 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref> A few soldiers from both sides were injured.{{Efn|Indian media, The Quint, reported that "one junior officer of Indian Army punched a Chinese PLA major and flattened him", according to "senior military officers in 33rd corps at Sikna covering Sikkim"<ref name="Bhaumik-2020" />|name=|group=}}<ref name="casualtiesViaCNN"/><ref name="hindustantimes.com">{{Cite news |last=Singh |first=Rahul |date=10 May 2020 |title=Army confirms India-China face-off, minor injuries to both sides |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/army-confirms-india-china-face-off-minor-injuries-to-both-sides/story-8VJk43aU1O7Vw0jWtV9ARP.html |access-date=10 May 2020}}</ref> A spokesperson from Indian Army's [[Eastern Command (India)|Eastern Command]] said that the matter had been "resolved after 'dialogue and interaction' at a local level" and that "temporary and short-duration face-offs between border guards do occur as boundaries are not resolved. Troops usually resolve such issues by using mutually established protocols".<ref name="AFP" /><ref name="Som-2020b" /> China did not share details about the incident, and the Chinese [[Ministry of National Defense of the People's Republic of China|Ministry of Defense]] did not comment on the incident.<ref name="work together">{{Cite news |last=Patranobis |first=Sutirtho |date=11 May 2020 |title='Should work together, fight Covid-19': China to India after Sikkim face-off |work=Hindustan Times |editor-last=Tripathi |editor-first=Ashutosh |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/should-work-together-fight-covid-19-china-to-india-after-sikkim-face-off/story-jfIylTI1T71y1TLfFutWAN.html |access-date=12 May 2020}}</ref> However, the foreign ministry said that the "Chinese soldiers had always upheld peace and tranquility along the border".<ref name="work together" />

=== Eastern Ladakh ===
<!-- Eastern Ladakh map -->
{{OSM Location map
 | coord = {{coord|34.8|78.30}}   <!-- Map center -->
 | float = right
 | zoom = 8
 | width = 300
 | height = 350
 | caption = {{center|Locations along the [[DS-DBO Road]]<br />
(and the "traditional customary boundary" declared by China in 1960).<ref name=declaration>{{Cite web |year=1962 |editor-last=India, Ministry of External Affairs |title=Report of the Officials of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AP4ruQEACAAJ |publisher=Government of India Press}}, {{Cite report |url=http://www.archieve.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/ORC_01-32_Part1.pdf |title=Chinese Report, Part 1 |pages=4–5}}<br />
The location and terrain features of this traditional customary boundary line are now described as follows in three sectors, western, middle and eastern.{{nbsp}}... The portion between Sinkiang and Ladakh for its entire length runs along the Karakoram Mountain range. Its specific location is as follows: From the Karakoram Pass it runs eastwards along the watershed between the tributaries of the Yarkand River on the one hand and the Shyok River on the other to a point approximately 78° 05' E, 35° 33' N, turns southwestwards and runs along a gully to approximately 78° 01' E, 35° 21' N; where it crosses the Chipchap River. It then turns south-east along the mountain ridge and passes through peak 6,845 (approximately 78° 12' E, 34° 57' N) and peak 6,598 (approximately 78° 13' E, 34° 54' N). From peak 6,598 it runs along the mountain ridge southwards until it crosses the Galwan River at approximately '''78° 13' E, 34° 46' N'''. Thence it passes through peak 6,556 (approximately 78° 26' E, 34° 32' N), and runs along the watershed between the Kugrang Tsangpo River and its tributary the Changlung River to approximately 78° 53' E, 34° 22' N. where it crosses the Changlung River.</ref>}}
 <!-- | minimap = file -->
 <!-- | mini-file = India Jammu and Kashmir location map.svg -->
 <!-- | mini-width = 100 -->
 <!-- | mini-height = 73 -->
 <!-- | minipog-x = 76 -->
 <!-- | minipog-y = 31 -->
 <!-- | scalemark = 120 -->
 <!-- | shape = image -->
<!-- Darbuk-->
 | mark-coord1 = {{coord| 34.1205908|78.1034063}}
 | mark1 = Red pog.svg
 | mark-size1 = 6
 | label1 = Darbuk
 | label-size1 = 10
 | label-color1 = hard red
 | label-pos1 = left |label-offset-x1 = 0 |label-offset-y1 = 0
 | mark-title1 = [[Darbuk]]
 | mark-image1 =
 | mark-description1 = Village in the Nubra tehsil
<!-- Shyok -->
 | mark-coord2 = {{coord|34.1780836|78.1399135}}
 | mark2 = Red pog.svg
 | mark-size2 = 6
 | label2 = Shyok
 | label-size2 = 10
 | label-color2 = hard red
 | label-pos2 = left |label-offset-x2 = 0 |label-offset-y2 = 0
 | mark-title2 = Shyok village
 | mark-image2 =
 | mark-description2 = Village in the Nubra tehsil
<!-- Chhumed -->
 | mark-coord3 = {{coord|34.4643641|78.2740544}}
 | mark3 = Red pog.svg
 | mark-size3 = 6
 | label3 = Chhumed
 | label-size3 = 10
 | label-color3 = hard red
 | label-pos3 = left |label-offset-x3 = 0 |label-offset-y3 = 0
 | mark-title3 = Chhumed village
 | mark-image3 =
 | mark-description3 = Village in the Nubra tehsil
<!-- Mundro -->
 | mark-coord4 = {{coord|34.6095461|78.1872189}}
 | mark4 = Red pog.svg
 | mark-size4 = 6
 | label4 = Mundro
 | label-size4 = 10
 | label-color4 = hard red
 | label-pos4 = left |label-offset-x4 = 0 |label-offset-y4 = 0
 | mark-title4 = Mundro village
 | mark-image4 =
 | mark-description4 = Village in the Nubra tehsil
<!-- Mandaltang -->
 | mark-coord5 = {{coord|34.7015420|78.1471681}}
 | mark5 = Red pog.svg
 | mark-size5 = 6
 | label5 = Mandaltang
 | label-size5 = 10
 | label-color5 = hard red
 | label-pos5 = left |label-offset-x5 = 0 |label-offset-y5 = 0
 | mark-title5 = Mandaltang village
 | mark-image5 =
 | mark-description5 = Village in the Nubra tehsil
<!-- Sultan Chhushku -->
 | mark-coord6 = {{coord|34.9637458|78.0026936}}
 | mark6 = Red pog.svg
 | mark-size6 = 6
 | label6 = Sultan |labela6 = Chhushku
 | label-size6 = 10
 | label-color6 = hard red
 | label-pos6 = left |label-offset-x6 = 0 |label-offset-y6 = -5
 | mark-title6 = Sultan Chhushku village
 | mark-image6 =
 | mark-description6 = Village in the Nubra tehsil
<!-- Murgo -->
 | mark-coord7 = {{coord|35.0414263|77.9373021}}
 | mark7 = Red pog.svg
 | mark-size7 = 6
 | label7 = Murgo
 | label-size7 = 10
 | label-color7 = hard red
 | label-pos7 = right |label-offset-x7 = 0 |label-offset-y7 = 0
 | mark-title7 = [[Murgo]]
 | mark-image7 =
 | mark-description7 = Village in the Nubra tehsil
<!-- Burtsa Gongma -->
 | mark-coord8 = {{coord|35.1199040|78.0379510}}
 | mark8 = Red pog.svg
 | mark-size8 = 6
 | label8 = Burtsa |labela8 = Gongma
 | label-size8 = 10
 | label-color8 = hard red
 | label-pos8 = left |label-offset-x8 = 0 |label-offset-y8 = -5
 | mark-title8 = Burtsa Gongma
 | mark-image8 =
 | mark-description8 = Locality close to the LAC
<!-- Qizil Langar -->
 | mark-coord9 = {{coord|35.2873800|77.9653361}}
 | mark9 = Red pog.svg
 | mark-size9 = 6
 | label9 = Qizil |labela9 = Langar
 | label-size9 = 10
 | label-color9 = hard red
 | label-pos9 = left |label-offset-x9 = 0 |label-offset-y9 = -5
 | mark-title9 = Qizil Langar
 | mark-image9 =
 | mark-description9 = Campground close to the LAC
<!-- Daulat Beg Oldi -->
 | mark-coord10 = {{coord|35.3914432|77.9211371}}
 | mark10 = Red pog.svg
 | mark-size10 = 6
 | label10 = DBO |labela10 = 
 | label-size10 = 10
 | label-color10 = hard red
 | label-pos10 = top |label-offset-x10 = 0 |label-offset-y10 = 0
 | mark-title10 = [[Daulat Beg Oldi]] (DBO)
 | mark-image10 =
 | mark-description10 = Indian Army base with an Advanced Landing Ground
<!-- Hot Springs -->
 | mark-coord11 = {{Coord|34.30|78.95}}
 | mark11 = Red pog.svg
 | mark-size11 = 6
 | label11 = Hot Springs |labela11 = 
 | label-size11 = 10
 | label-color11 = hard red
 | label-pos11 = bottom |label-offset-x11 = -10 |label-offset-y11 = 0
 | mark-title11 = [[Hot Springs, Chang Chenmo Valley|Hot Springs]]
 | mark-image11 =
 | mark-description11 = Indian Army checkpost
 <!-- Depsang -->
 | mark-coord12 = {{coord|35.3000|78.0000}}
 | mark12 = Red pog.svg
 | mark-size12 = 6
 | label12 = Depsang |labela12 = 
 | label-size12 = 10
 | label-color12 = hard red
 | label-pos12 = top |label-offset-x12 = -25 |label-offset-y12 = 0
 | mark-title12 = Depsang
 | mark-image12 =
 | mark-description12 = Depsang
<!-- RIVERS -->
<!-- Shyok River flowing north -->
 | mark-coord20 = {{coord|34.636|77.4529}}
 | mark20 = AS-rzeka-icon.svg
 | mark-size20 = 10
 | label20 =  |labela20 = River
 | label-size20 = 12
 | label-color20 = hard blue
 | label-pos20 = left
 | mark-title20 = [[Shyok River]] flowing north
 | mark-image20 =
 | mark-description20 = Tributary of the Indus River
<!-- Shyok River flowing north -->
 | mark-coord21 = {{coord|34.3699|77.7894}}
 | mark21 = AS-rzeka-icon.svg
 | mark-size21 = 10
 | label21 = Shyok |labela21 = River
 | label-size21 = 12
 | label-color21 = hard blue
 | label-pos21 = left
 | mark-title21 = [[Shyok River]] flowing north
 | mark-image21 =
 | mark-description21 = Tributary of the Indus River
<!-- Shyok River flowing south -->
 | mark-coord22 = {{coord|34.8375|78.1416}}
 | mark22 = AS-rzeka-icon.svg
 | mark-size22 = 10
 | label22 =  |labela22 = 
 | label-size22 = 10
 | label-color22 = hard blue
 | label-pos22 = top
 | mark-title22 = [[Shyok River]] flowing south
 | mark-image22 =
 | mark-description22 = Tributary of the Indus River
<!-- Shyok River flowing south -->
 | mark-coord23 = {{coord|35.1596|77.7118}}
 | mark23 = AS-rzeka-icon.svg
 | mark-size23 = 10
 | label23 =  |labela23 = 
 | label-size23 = 12
 | label-color23 = hard blue
 | label-pos23 = left
 | mark-title23 = [[Shyok River]] flowing north
 | mark-image23 =
 | mark-description23 = Tributary of the Indus River
<!-- Changchenmo -->
 | mark-coord24 = {{coord|34.288|78.544}} <!-- 34.2898|78.4149 -->
 | mark24 = AS-rzeka-icon.svg
 | mark-size24 = 10
 | label24 = Chang Chenmo |labela24 = 
 | label-size24 = 10
 | label-color24 = hard blue
 | label-pos24 = top |label-offset-x24 = 0 |label-offset-y24 = 0
 | mark-title24 = [[Changchenmo River]]
 | mark-image24 =
 | mark-description24 = Tributary of the Shyok River
<!-- Galwan River -->
 | mark-coord25 = {{coord|34.7081|78.3877}} <!-- 34.6605|78.5413 -->
 | mark25 = AS-rzeka-icon.svg
 | mark-size25 = 10
 | label25 = Galwan |labela25 = River
 | label-size25 = 10
 | label-color25 = hard blue
 | label-pos25 = bottom
 | mark-title25 = [[Galwan River]]
 | mark-image25 =
 | mark-description25 = Tributary of the Shyok River
<!-- Jeong Nala -->
 | mark-coord26 = {{coord|35.03|78.2307}}
 | mark26 = AS-rzeka-icon.svg
 | mark-size26 = 10
 | label26 = Jeong Nala |labela26 =
 | label-size26 = 10
 | label-color26 = hard blue
 | label-pos26 = top |label-offset-x26 = 20 |label-offset-y26 = 0
 | mark-title26 = Jeong Nala
 | mark-image26 =
 | mark-description26 = Tributary of the Shyok River
<!-- Raki Nala -->
 | mark-coord27 = {{coord|35.156|78.1612}}
 | mark27 = AS-rzeka-icon.svg
 | mark-size27 = 10
 | label27 = Raki Nala
 | label-size27 = 10
 | label-color27 = hard blue
 | label-pos27 = right
 | mark-title27 = Raki Nala
 | mark-image27 =
 | mark-description27 = Tributary of the Shyok River
<!-- Chip Chap River -->
 | mark-coord28 = {{coord|35.3016|78.2704}}
 | mark28 = AS-rzeka-icon.svg
 | mark-size28 = 10
 | label28 = Chip Chap |labela28 = River
 | label-size28 = 10
 | label-color28 = hard blue
 | label-pos28 = top
 | mark-title28 = [[Chip Chap River]]
 | mark-image28 =
 | mark-description28 = Tributary of the Shyok River
<!-- Karakash -->
 | mark-coord29 = {{coord|34.9504|78.5595}} <!-- 35.042756|78.752434 -->
 | mark29 = AS-rzeka-icon.svg
 | mark-size29 = 10
 | label29 = Karakash
 | label-size29 = 10
 | label-color29 = hard blue
 | label-pos29 = top |label-offset-x29 = 0 |label-offset-y29 = 0
 | mark-title29 = [[Karakash River]]
 | mark-image29 =
 | mark-description29 = Drains into the Tarim Basin
<!-- Chinese boundary point in the north -->
 | mark-coord30 = {{coord|35|33|N|78|05|E}}
 | mark30 = Pin location context.svg
 | mark-size30 = 14
 | shape30 = 
 | shape-color30 = yellow
 | shape-outline30 = yellow
 | label30 = |labela30 =  |labelb30 = 
 | label-size30 = 10
 | label-color30 = black
 | label-pos30 = bottom |label-offset-x30 = 0 |label-offset-y30 = 0
 | mark-title30 = Chinese boundary point
 | mark-image30 =
 | mark-description30 =  Declared in the ''Report of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question'', 1960
<!-- Chinese boundary point at Chip Chap -->
 | mark-coord31 = {{coord|35|21|N|78|01|E}}
 | mark31 = Pin location context.svg
 | mark-size31 = 14
 | shape31 = 
 | shape-color31 = yellow
 | shape-outline31 = yellow
 | label31 = |labela31 =  |labelb31 = 
 | label-size31 = 10
 | label-color31 = black
 | label-pos31 = bottom |label-offset-x31 = 0 |label-offset-y31 = 0
 | mark-title31 = Chinese boundary point
 | mark-image31 =
 | mark-description31 =  Declared in the ''Report of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question'', 1960
<!-- Chinese boundary point at peak 6,845 -->
 | mark-coord32 = {{coord|34|57|N|78|12|E}}
 | mark32 = Pin location context.svg
 | mark-size32 = 14
 | shape32 = 
 | shape-color32 = yellow
 | shape-outline32 = yellow
 | label32 = |labela32 =  |labelb32 = 
 | label-size32 = 10
 | label-color32 = black
 | label-pos32 = bottom |label-offset-x32 = 0 |label-offset-y32 = 0
 | mark-title32 = Chinese boundary point
 | mark-image32 =
 | mark-description32 =  Declared in the ''Report of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question'', 1960
<!-- Chinese boundary point at peak 6,598 -->
 | mark-coord33 = {{coord|34|54|N|78|13|E}}
 | mark33 = Pin location context.svg
 | mark-size33 = 14
 | shape33 = 
 | shape-color33 = yellow
 | shape-outline33 = yellow
 | label33 = |labela33 =  |labelb33 = 
 | label-size33 = 10
 | label-color33 = black
 | label-pos33 = bottom |label-offset-x33 = 0 |label-offset-y33 = 0
 | mark-title33 = Chinese boundary point
 | mark-image33 =
 | mark-description33 =  Declared in the ''Report of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question'', 1960
<!-- Chinese boundary point at Galwan -->
 | mark-coord34 = {{coord|34|46|N|78|13|E}}
 | mark34 = Pin location context.svg
 | mark-size34 = 14
 | shape34 = 
 | shape-color34 = yellow
 | shape-outline34 = yellow
 | label34 = |labela34 =  |labelb34 = 
 | label-size34 = 10
 | label-color34 = black
 | label-pos34 = bottom |label-offset-x34 = 0 |label-offset-y34 = 0
 | mark-title34 = Chinese boundary point
 | mark-image34 =
 | mark-description34 =  Declared in the ''Report of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question'', 1960
<!-- Chinese boundary point at peak 6,556 -->
 | mark-coord35 = {{coord|34|32|N|78|26|E}}
 | mark35 = Pin location context.svg
 | mark-size35 = 14
 | shape35 = 
 | shape-color35 = yellow
 | shape-outline35 = yellow
 | label35 = |labela35 =  |labelb35 = 
 | label-size35 = 10
 | label-color35 = black
 | label-pos35 = bottom |label-offset-x35 = 0 |label-offset-y35 = 0
 | mark-title35 = Chinese boundary point
 | mark-image35 =
 | mark-description35 =  Declared in the ''Report of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question'', 1960
<!-- Chinese boundary point at Changlung -->
 | mark-coord36 = {{coord|34|22|N|78|53|E}}
 | mark36 = Pin location context.svg
 | mark-size36 = 14
 | shape36 = 
 | shape-color36 = yellow
 | shape-outline36 = yellow
 | label36 = |labela36 =  |labelb36 = 
 | label-size36 = 10
 | label-color36 = black
 | label-pos36 = bottom |label-offset-x36 = 0 |label-offset-y36 = 0
 | mark-title36 = Chinese boundary point
 | mark-image36 =
 | mark-description36 =  Declared in the ''Report of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question'', 1960
}}

On 21 May, the ''[[Indian Express]]'' reported that Chinese troops had entered the Indian territory in the [[Galwan River]] valley and objected to the road construction by India within the (undisputed) Indian territory. The road under construction is a branch of the [[Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road]] (DSDBO) which leads into the Galwan valley.{{efn|The [[Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road]] (DSDBO) is the first border road constructed by India in the [[Shyok River]] valley. Starting in 2000, it was completed recently in April 2019.
China already has numerous roads crisscrossing Aksai Chin.
In addition to the national highway [[G210]],
there is S519 that connects [[Kongka La]] to G210,
S520 that connects Kongka La to [[Rutog Town|Rutog]] via [[Pangong Tso]],
Tianwendian Highway that connects the [[Tianwendian]] post G210,
a "Tiankong" Highway between Tianwendian and Kongka La,
and a new Galwan Highway that connects Tiankong to the Galwan Valley right up to the Line of Actual Control.}} The report also stated that "the Chinese pitched 70–80 tents in the area and then reinforced the area with troops, heavy vehicles, and monitoring equipment."<ref name="counter-measures">{{Cite news |last=Singh |first=Sushant |date=21 May 2020 |title=India builds road north of Ladakh lake, China warns of 'necessary counter-measures' |work=The Indian Express |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-builds-road-north-of-ladakh-lake-china-warns-of-necessary-counter-measures-6421271/ |access-date=26 May 2020}}</ref> On 24 May, another report said that the Chinese soldiers invaded India at three different places: [[Hot Springs, Chang Chenmo Valley|Hot Springs]], Patrol Point 14, and [[Patrol Point 15]].<ref name="multiple locations"/><ref name="3 places"/>

At each of these places, around 800–1,000 Chinese soldiers reportedly crossed the LAC and settled at a place about {{cvt|2–3|km|mi|0}} from the border, pitching tents and deploying heavy vehicles and monitoring equipment. The report added that India also deployed troops in the area and stationed them {{convert|300–500|m|0}} from the Chinese troops.<ref name="multiple locations">{{Cite news |last=Philip |first=Snehesh Alex |date=24 May 2020 |title=Chinese troops challenge India at multiple locations in eastern Ladakh, standoff continues |work=The Print |url=https://theprint.in/defence/chinese-troops-challenge-india-at-multiple-locations-in-eastern-ladakh-standoff-continues/428304/ |access-date=24 May 2020}}</ref><ref name="3 places">{{Cite news |last=Singh |first=Sushant |date=24 May 2020 |title=Chinese intrusions at 3 places in Ladakh, Army chief takes stock |work=The Indian Express |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/m-m-naravane-army-chief-line-of-actual-control-lac-chinese-transgressions-6424478/ |access-date=24 May 2020}}</ref> The ''EurAsian Times'' stated that the Chinese forces "have a huge build-up including military-style bunkers, new permanent structures, military trucks, and road-building equipment".<ref name="EurAsian">{{Cite web |last=Ticku |first=Nitin J. |date=24 May 2020 |title=India, China Border Dispute in Ladakh as Dangerous as 1999 Kargil Incursions – Experts |url=https://eurasiantimes.com/india-china-border-dispute-in-ladakh-as-dangerous-as-1999-kargil-incursions-experts/ |website=EurAsian Times}}</ref> On 30 May, [[Ajai Shukla]] reported that thousands of Chinese soldiers were "consolidating their positions," and that there were 18 guns at Pangong Tso and about 12 guns in the Galwan valley. Indian troops had taken up positions to block any further advance by the PLA towards the DSDBO Road.<ref name="defence minister">{{Cite news |last=Shukla |first=Ajai |date=30 May 2020 |title=Defence minister Rajnath Singh speaks to US on China's LAC intrusion |work=Business Standard |url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/defence/defence-minister-rajnath-singh-speaks-to-us-on-china-s-lac-intrusion-120053000028_1.html/ |access-date=30 May 2020}}</ref>

On 27 May 2020, the Chinese Ambassador to India as well as a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman stated that the overall situation was stable.<ref>{{Cite news |date=27 May 2020 |title='Differences Should Not Overshadow Relations': China Downplays Border Standoff, Says Situation Controllable |work=News18 |url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/china-says-situation-at-india-border-overall-stable-and-controllable-2639681.html |access-date=27 May 2020}}</ref> However, news reports continued stating that thousands of Chinese soldiers were moving into the disputed regions in Ladakh. This move prompted India to deploy more troops.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Ellis-Petersen |first=Hannah |date=27 May 2020 |title=China and India move troops as border tensions escalate |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/27/china-and-india-move-troops-as-border-tensions-escalate |access-date=25 November 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Dhoundial |first=Shreya |date=1 June 2020 |title=Army Sends Reinforcements from Kashmir to Ladakh as China Tries to Bully India Amid Cold War With US |work=News18 |url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/army-sends-reinforcements-from-kashmir-to-ladakh-as-china-tries-to-bully-india-amid-cold-war-with-us-2646959.html |access-date=25 November 2020}}</ref> Chinese infrastructure development was also reported in Gogra–Hot Springs. Tracks in satellite imagery suggest that PLA troops make forays into Indian territory here.<ref name="Ruser-2020">{{Cite web |last=Ruser |first=Nathan |date=18 June 2020 |title=Satellite images show positions surrounding deadly China–India clash |url=https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/satellite-images-show-positions-surrounding-deadly-china-india-clash/ |access-date=25 June 2020 |website=The Strategist |publisher=[[Australian Strategic Policy Institute]]}}</ref>

==== Galwan Valley clash ====
{{OSM Location map
| coord = {{coord|34.764|78.189}}   <!-- Map center -->
| float = right
| zoom = 12
| width = 300
| height = 200
| caption = {{center|[[Galwan River]] at the [[Line of Actual Control]]<ref name=declaration />}}
<!-- source of Galwan-->
| mark-coord1 = {{coord|34.7449|78.7358}} <!-- {{coord|34.7267|78.6184}} -->
| mark1 = BlackRedMountain.svg
| mark-size1 = 10
| label1 = Source of Galwan
| label-size1 = 10
| label-color1 = hard blue
| label-pos1 = right
| mark-title1 = Source of Galwan River
| mark-image1 =
| mark-description1 = Source of Galwan River
<!-- Samzungling -->
| mark-coord2 = {{coord|34.6766473|78.7368883}}
| mark2 = Red pog.svg
| mark-size2 = 6
| label2 = Samzungling
| label-size2 = 10
| label-color2 = hard red
| label-pos2 = right
| mark-title2 = Samzungling
| mark-image2 =
| mark-description2 = Campground
<!-- mouth of Galwan-->
| mark-coord3 = {{coord|34.757111|78.161084}}
| mark3 = AS-rzeka-icon.svg
| mark-size3 = 10
| label3 = Shyok |labela3 = bed
| label-size3 = 10
| label-color3 = hard blue
| label-pos3 = top
| mark-title3 = Joining Shyok River
| mark-image3 =
| mark-description3 = Joining Shyok River
<!-- KM 120 -->
| mark-coord4 = {{coord|34.76332|78.15062}}
| mark4 = Wtlogo2.png
| mark-size4 = 10
| label4 = Indian |labela4 = post
| label-size4 = 10
| label-color4 = hard red
| label-pos4 = left
| mark-title4 = KM 120
| mark-image4 =
| mark-description4 = Indian military post
<!-- DS-DBO Road -->
| mark-coord5 = {{coord|34.7474|78.1534}}
| mark5 = Ikona - deptak.svg
| mark-size5 = 10
| label5 = DS-DBO |labela5 = Road
| label-size5 = 10
| label-color5 = hard red
| label-pos5 = left
| mark-title5 = [[Darbuk-Shyok-DBO Road]]
| mark-image5 =
| mark-description5 = 
<!-- Galwan River in Ladakh -->
| mark-coord6 = {{coord|34.7628|78.1918}}
| mark6 = AS-rzeka-icon.svg
| mark-size6 = 10
| label6 = Galwan
| label-size6 = 10
| label-color6 = hard blue
| label-pos6 = top
| mark-title6 = Galwan River
| mark-image6 =
| mark-description6 = 
<!-- Galwan River in Aksai Chin -->
| mark-coord7 = {{coord|34.7509|78.2358}}
| mark7 = AS-rzeka-icon.svg
| mark-size7 = 10
| label7 = Galwan
| label-size7 = 10
| label-color7 = hard blue
| label-pos7 = left
| mark-title7 = Galwan River
| mark-image7 =
| mark-description7 = 
<!-- Tributary stream -->
| mark-coord8 = {{coord|34.78345|78.21098}}
| mark8 = AS-rzeka-icon.svg
| mark-size8 = 8
| label8 = stream
| label-size8 = 10
| label-color8 = hard blue
| label-pos8 = top
| mark-title8 = Galwan tributary
| mark-image8 =
| mark-description8 = 
<!-- Chinese border point -->
| mark-coord10 = {{coord|34|46|N|78|13|E}}
| mark10 = Pin location context.svg
| mark-size10 = 14
| shape10 = 
| shape-color10 = yellow
| shape-outline10 = yellow
| label10 = Traditional customary |labela10 = boundary of China |labelb10 = declared 1960
| label-size10 = 10
| label-color10 = gray
| label-pos10 = bottom |label-offset-x10 = 0 |label-offset-y10 = 0
| mark-title10 = Chinese border point
| mark-image10 =
| mark-description10 =  Declared in the ''Report of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question'', 1960
<!-- Galwan Kangri -->
| mark-coord11 = {{coord|34.784377|N|78.414982|E}}
| mark11 = BlackRedMountain.svg
| mark-size11 = 20
| label11 = Galwan |labela11 = Kangri
| label-size11 = 10
| label-color11 = hard red
| label-pos11 = top
| mark-title11 = Galwan Kangri peak
| mark-image11 =
| mark-description11 = Galwan Kangri peak
<!-- Karakash -->
| mark-coord15 = {{coord|35.042756|N|78.752434|E}}
| mark15 = AS-rzeka-icon.svg
| mark-size15 = 10
| label15 = Karakash River
| label-size15 = 10
| label-color15 = hard blue
| label-pos15 = right
| mark-title15 = Karakash River
| mark-image15 =
| mark-description15 = Karakash River
}}
On 15 June, at [[Patrolling Point|patrolling point 14]], Indian{{Efn|"The June 15 clash involved personnel from 16 Bihar, 3 Punjab, 3 Medium Regiment and 81 Field Regiment."<ref name="names" />|name=|group=}} and Chinese troops clashed for six hours in a steep section of a mountainous region in the Galwan Valley. The immediate cause of the incident is unknown, with both sides releasing contradictory official statements in the aftermath.<ref name="hindustantimes_0619" />{{Sfnp|Deepak, Chapter 4.4.2|2020|p=72,&nbsp;167}}  Beijing said that Indian troops had attacked Chinese troops first,<ref>{{Cite web |date=17 June 2020 |title=China blames Indian troops for deadly border clash |url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1564042 |access-date=28 June 2020 |website=DAWN}}</ref> while on 18 June ''The Hindu'' quoted a "senior government official" in the Ministry of External Affairs of India who said their troops were ambushed with dammed rivulets being released and boulders being thrown by Chinese troops.<ref name="SinghV-2020a" /> The statement said this happened while they were patrolling a disputed area where Colonel [[B. Santosh Babu|Santosh Babu]] had destroyed a Chinese tent two days earlier.<ref name="SinghV-2020a">{{Cite news |last=Singh |first=Vijaita |date=18 June 2020 |title=Ladakh face-off: China's People's Liberation Army meticulously planned attack in Galwan, says senior government official |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ladakh-face-off-chinas-peoples-liberation-army-meticulously-planned-attack-in-galwan-says-senior-government-official/article31862371.ece |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=22 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200618162103/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ladakh-face-off-chinas-peoples-liberation-army-meticulously-planned-attack-in-galwan-says-senior-government-official/article31862371.ece |archive-date=18 June 2020}}</ref> 

While soldiers carry firearms, due to decades of tradition designed to reduce the possibility of an escalation, agreements disallowed usage of firearms, but the Chinese side was reported to possess iron rods, clubs and batons wrapped in barbed wire and clubs embedded with nails.<ref>{{Cite web |date=18 June 2020 |editor-last=Tripathi |editor-first=Ashutosh |title='All border troops carry arms': Jaishankar responds to Rahul Gandhi on Ladakh standoff |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/get-facts-straight-s-jaishankar-on-soldiers-without-arms-in-china-clash/story-73VYyqeWNdFMNMJrX6PWUI.html |access-date=19 June 2020 |website=Hindustan Times}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Haltiwanger |first=John |date=18 June 2020 |title=Hundreds of Chinese troops reportedly hunted down dozens of Indian soldiers and beat them with batons wrapped in barbed wire |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-troops-beat-indian-soldiers-batons-wrapped-in-barbed-wire-2020-6 |access-date=29 June 2020 |website=Business Insider}}</ref> Hand-to-hand combat broke out, and the Indian soldiers called for reinforcements from a post about {{Convert|2|mi|km|abbr=|order=flip}} away. Eventually, up to 600 men were engaged in combat using stones, batons, iron rods, and other makeshift weapons. The fighting, which took place in near-total darkness, lasted for up to six hours.<ref name="guardian">{{cite news |last1=Safi |first1=Michael |last2=Ellis-Petersen |first2=Hannah |last3=Davidson |first3=Helen |date=17 June 2020 |title=Soldiers fell to their deaths as India and China's troops fought with rocks |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/17/shock-and-anger-in-india-after-worst-attack-on-china-border-in-decades |access-date=17 June 2020 |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> The Defence Ministry of India said in its 2020 year end review that China used "unorthodox weapons".<ref>{{Cite web |date=6 January 2021 |title=In first mention, Defence review says 'unorthodox' weapons used in Galwan |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/galwan-valley-india-china-clash-lac-indian-army-7134333/ |access-date=11 January 2021 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref>

[[File:Galwan clash site PP-14.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The site of Galwan clash at the river bend. Also seen are the [[Line of Actual Control|LAC]] claimed by China June 2020 in green, and the prevailing LAC marked by the US [[Office of the Geographer]] in red]]
[[File:Galwan clash 2020 via World Wind annotated (cropped).png|thumb|right|300px|The site of the Galwan clash via [[NASA WorldWind]]]]
The fighting resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers, including 16th [[Bihar Regiment]] commanding officer Colonel [[B. Santosh Babu|Santosh Babu]]<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Peri |first1=Dinakar |last2=Krishnan |first2=Ananth |date=16 June 2020 |title=India-China standoff {{!}} Army officer, two jawans killed in Ladakh scuffle; casualties on Chinese side also |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/one-indian-army-officer-two-jawans-killed-in-ladakh-scuffle/article31840687.ece |access-date=16 June 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref><ref name="Pubby-2020b">{{Cite news |last=Pubby |first=Manu |date=17 June 2020 |title=Over 20 soldiers, including Commanding Officer killed at Galwan border clash with China |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/over-20-soldiers-including-commanding-officer-killed-at-galwan-border-clash-with-china/articleshow/76410908.cms |access-date=17 June 2020}}</ref> and [[Junior Commissioned Officer]] [[2020–2022 China–India skirmishes#Wartime gallantry awards to members of Indian military|Nuduram Soren]] [[Vir Chakra|VrC]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=Gallantry Awards {{!}} Ministry of Defence, Government of India |url=https://www.gallantryawards.gov.in/awardee/4952 |access-date=2021-10-14 |website=www.gallantryawards.gov.in}}</ref>{{efn|Soren was posthumously awarded India’s third highest war-time military decoration, [[Vir Chakra]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Otv |first=News Desk |title=Nuduram Soren had joined the Indian army in 1997 and was posted as a Naib Subedar in the 16 Bihar regiment.}}</ref>}} While three Indian soldiers died on the spot, others died later due to injuries and [[hypothermia]].<ref name="Pandit-2020">{{cite web |last=Pandit |first=Rajat |date=17 June 2020 |title=LAC standoff: 20 Indian Army soldiers die in worst China clash in 53 years |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/lac-faceoff-20-soldiers-die-in-worst-china-clash-in-53-years/articleshow/76414433.cms |access-date=17 June 2020 |website=The Times of India}}</ref> Most of the soldiers who were killed fell to their deaths after losing their footing or being pushed off a ridge.<ref name="guardian" /> The clash took place near the fast-flowing Galwan River, and some soldiers from both sides fell into a rivulet and were killed or injured.<ref name="Pandit-2020" /> Bodies were later recovered from the [[Shyok River]].<ref name="Pubby-2020b" /> Several Indian news outlets stated that at least 10 Indian soldiers, including 4 officers, were taken captive and then released by the Chinese military on 18 June.<ref name="Haidar-2020" /> 

According to Gen [[V. K. Singh|VK Singh]], an unconfirmed number of Chinese soldiers were also captured and later released by India.<ref name="DCCapturedChineseSoldiers20June" /> Some Indian soldiers had also been momentarily taken captive.<ref name="Pandit-2020" /> According to Indian media sources, the mêlée resulted in 43 Chinese casualties.<ref name="BBCNews-2020" /><ref>{{cite web |date=17 June 2020 |editor-last=Dwivedi |editor-first=Aman |title=Highlights: 20 Indian Soldiers Killed; 43 Chinese Casualties In Ladakh |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-china-updates-army-officer-2-soldiers-killed-in-violent-face-off-with-china-in-ladakh-2247070 |access-date=16 June 2020 |publisher=NDTV |quote=...The Chinese side has suffered 43 casualties, news agency ANI said...}}</ref> Per media reports based on sources, the Chinese side accepted a de-escalation meeting following the incident; a Chinese commanding officer was also killed in the mêlée.<ref name="ANIFaceOffCO22Jun" /> The Chinese defence ministry confirmed the existence of Chinese casualties but refused to share the number.<ref>{{cite web |title=China State Media Plays Down India Clash, No Mention Of Casualties |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/china-state-media-plays-down-india-clash-no-mention-of-casualties-2247537 |website=NDTV.com}}</ref> Reports emerged on [[Chinese internet]] that five Chinese soldiers died on 16 June,<ref>{{cite web |last=Bunkall |first=Alistair |date=16 June 2020 |title=Line of Actual Control: Three Indian soldiers and 'five Chinese' dead in border clashes |url=https://news.sky.com/story/line-of-actual-control-three-indian-soldiers-and-five-chinese-dead-in-border-clashes-12007788 |access-date=25 November 2020 |website=SkyNews}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Shan |first=Xiao |date=16 June 2017 |title=中印边境冲突致死双方一级战备 专家指习近平强硬或不退让 |url=https://www.rfi.fr/cn/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD/20200616-%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%B0%E8%BE%B9%E5%A2%83%E5%86%B2%E7%AA%81%E8%87%B4%E6%AD%BB%E5%8F%8C%E6%96%B9%E4%B8%80%E7%BA%A7%E6%88%98%E5%A4%87-%E4%B8%93%E5%AE%B6%E6%8C%87%E4%B9%A0%E8%BF%91%E5%B9%B3%E5%BC%BA%E7%A1%AC%E6%88%96%E4%B8%8D%E9%80%80%E8%AE%A9 |access-date=25 November 2020 |website=Radio France Internationale |language=zh}}</ref> but the report was subsequently [[Censorship in China|censored]] by the Chinese government.<ref>{{cite web |last=Shān |first=Xiǎo |date=17 June 2020 |title=传解放军中印边境死40人 遭指或怕丢脸不敢公布? |trans-title=It is said that 40 people of the People's Liberation Army died on the China-India border |url=https://www.rfi.fr/cn/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD/20200617-%E4%BC%A0%E8%A7%A3%E6%94%BE%E5%86%9B%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%B0%E8%BE%B9%E5%A2%83%E6%AD%BB40%E4%BA%BA-%E9%81%AD%E6%8C%87%E6%88%96%E6%80%95%E4%B8%A2%E8%84%B8%E4%B8%8D%E6%95%A2%E5%85%AC%E5%B8%83 |access-date=25 November 2020 |website=Radio France Internationale |language=zh}}</ref> On 22 June, when asked about an Indian minister's assertion about the number of Chinese casualties, China declined to comment.<ref>{{cite web |date=22 June 2020 |title=China declines to react to VK Singh's remark that 40 PLA soldiers killed in Galwan Valley clash |url=https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/china-declines-to-react-to-vk-singhs-remark-that-40-pla-soldiers-killed-in-galwan-valley-clash-102651 |access-date=22 June 2020 |website=The Tribune}}</ref> 

Two days later on 24 June a Chinese spokesperson responded and called the remark from the Indian minister 'misinformation'.<ref name="chinaresponsedeathtoll">{{Cite web |date=23 June 2020 |title=中印冲突中方死亡40人？外交部回应 |trans-title=40 Chinese dead in the Sino-Indian conflict? Ministry of Foreign Affairs responds |url=http://news.sina.com.cn/zx/2020-06-23/doc-iirczymk8603224.shtml |access-date=25 November 2020 |website=Sina News |language=zh}}</ref> US intelligence reported that the PLA suffered 35 casualties.{{efn|Sources disagree. Most sources list 35 casualties while one source claimed 35 death.<ref name="Hindu35ChineseCasualties17June"/><ref name="USNews1"/><ref>{{Cite news |title=China India clashes: China suffered 35 casualties during Galwan clash: US intelligence reports {{!}} India News |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/china-suffered-35-casualties-during-galwan-clash-us-intelligence-reports/articleshow/76420470.cms |website=The Times of India|date=17 June 2020 }}</ref>}} Indian media reported that 10 Indian soldiers were released from Chinese custody in 17 June, including four officers.<ref name="Haidar-2020"/><ref>{{Cite web |last=Singh |first=Sushant |date=19 June 2020 |title=Hectic negotiations lead to return of 10 Indian soldiers from Chinese custody |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-china-border-news-galwan-valley-soldiers-return-6465893/ |access-date=19 June 2020 |website=The Indian Express}}</ref> Responding to the reports, the Indian Army and the Chinese Foreign Ministry have both denied that any Indian personnel was taken into custody.<ref>{{Cite news |date=19 June 2020 |title=China denies detaining Indian soldiers after reports say 10 freed |publisher=Al Jazeera |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/06/china-releases-indian-soldiers-days-ladakh-clash-reports-200619033527314.html |access-date=20 June 2020}}</ref> On 19 February 2021, the [[Central Military Commission (China)|Central Military Commission]] of China stated that four of its soldiers were posthumously awarded for their actions during the June 2020 clash with India at Galwan.<ref>{{Cite web |date=19 February 2021 |title=For First Time, China Acknowledges Casualties in Galwan Clash |url=https://thewire.in/world/china-acknowledges-casualties-galwan-clash-india-army |access-date=19 February 2021 |website=[[The Wire (India)|The Wire]]}}</ref>

On 16 June, Chinese Colonel Zhang Shuili, spokesperson for the PLA's Western Command, said that the Indian military violated bilateral consensus causing "fierce physical confrontations and casualties",<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jin (马驰) |first=Zhou |date=17 June 2020 |title=India urged to halt border violation |url=https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202006/17/WS5ee9503ca3108348172537c3.html |access-date=26 August 2020 |website=China Daily}}</ref> and that "the sovereignty over the Galwan Valley area had always belonged to China".<ref name="Pubby-2020b" /><ref>{{Cite news |date=16 June 2020 |title=Chinese military demands Indian border troops stop infringing and provocative actions |publisher=Ministry of National Defense of the People's Republic of China |agency=China Military Online |url=http://eng.mod.gov.cn/news/2020-06/16/content_4866818.htm}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Khaliq |first=Riyaz ul |date=16 June 2020 |title=Indian troops violated agreements along LAC: China |publisher=Anadolu Agency |url=https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/indian-troops-violated-agreements-along-lac-china/1879093 |access-date=17 June 2020}}</ref> On 18 June, India's Minister of External Affairs made a statement saying that China had "unilaterally tried to change the status quo" and that the violence was "premeditated and planned".<ref>{{Cite web |date=18 June 2020 |editor-last=Tikku |editor-first=Aloke |title='Exaggerated': India's late night rebuttal to China's new claim over Galwan Valley |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/in-rebuttal-at-midnight-india-calls-china-claim-over-galwan-untenable/story-vHFNgMujti6TNezyjFNSkN.html |access-date=18 June 2020 |website=Hindustan Times}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Haidar |first=Suhasini |date=17 June 2020 |title=Chinese troops tried to change status quo: India |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/chinese-troops-tried-to-change-status-quo-mea/article31848316.ece |access-date=18 June 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref> The same day, the United States [[Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs]] said that the Chinese PLA had "invaded" the "contested area" between India and China.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jones |first=Keith |date=20 June 2020 |title=US stokes India-China conflict, blames Chinese "aggression" for border clash |url=https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/20/usin-j20.html |access-date=20 June 2020 |website=World Socialist Web Site}}</ref> 

On 19 June, however, Prime Minister Modi declared that "neither have [China] intruded into our border, nor has any post been taken over by them", contradicting multiple previous statements by the Indian government.<ref name="hindustantimes_0619">{{Cite news |date=19 June 2020 |title='China did not enter our territory, no posts taken': PM at all-party meet on Ladakh clash |work=Hindustan Times |editor-last=Tripathi |editor-first=Ashutosh |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/chinese-troops-did-not-enter-our-territory-says-pm-modi-at-all-party-meeting-on-ladakh-standoff/story-QGgGUyL3sVRYB7mp3Y8bBI.html |url-status=dead |access-date=20 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200619200235/https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/chinese-troops-did-not-enter-our-territory-says-pm-modi-at-all-party-meeting-on-ladakh-standoff/story-QGgGUyL3sVRYB7mp3Y8bBI.html |archive-date=19 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=19 June 2020 |title=Modi's 'No Intrusion' by China Claim Contradicts India's Stand, Raises Multiple Questions |work=The Wire |url=https://thewire.in/security/modis-no-intrusion-by-china-claim-contradicts-indias-stand-raises-multiple-questions |access-date=20 June 2020}}</ref> Later the [[Prime Minister's Office (India)|Prime Minister's Office]] clarified that the Indian Prime Minister wanted to indicate the bravery of 16 Bihar Regiment who had foiled the attempt of the Chinese side.<ref name="infiltration">{{Cite web |date=20 June 2020 |title=PMO issues clarification over Modi's comments that no one entered Indian territory |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/government-will-not-allow-any-unilateral-change-of-lac-reiterates-centre/articleshow/76479463.cms |access-date=20 June 2020 |website=The Times of India}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Anshuman |first=Kumar |date=20 June 2020 |title=PMO issues clarification over Modi's comments that no one entered Indian territory |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/pmo-issues-clarification-over-modis-comments-that-no-one-entered-indian-territory/articleshow/76479835.cms |access-date=20 June 2020}}</ref> On 22 June, ''[[U.S. News & World Report]]'' reported that US intelligence agencies have assessed that the chief of China's [[Western Theater Command]], Gen. [[Zhao Zongqi]], had sanctioned the skirmish.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Shinkman |first=Paul D. |date=22 June 2020 |title=U.S. Intel: China Ordered Attack on Indian Troops in Galwan River Valley |url=https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2020-06-22/us-intel-source-china-ordered-attack-on-indian-troops-in-galwan-river-valley |access-date=1 July 2020 |website=[[U.S. News & World Report]]}}</ref>
In the aftermath of the incident at Galwan, the Indian Army decided to equip soldiers along the border with lightweight riot gear as well as spiked clubs.<ref>{{Cite news |date=18 June 2020 |title=India recovers from the shock of nail-studded clubs, gets ready to get even |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-recovers-from-the-shock-of-nail-studded-clubs-gets-ready-to-get-even/articleshow/76442476.cms |access-date=18 June 2020}}</ref><ref name="Unnithan-2020b">{{Cite web |last=Unnithan |first=Sandeep |date=18 June 2020 |title=A new arms race? |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/a-new-arms-race-1690133-2020-06-18 |access-date=18 June 2020 |website=India Today}}</ref> 

On 20 June, India removed restriction on usage of firearms for Indian soldiers along the LAC.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Singh |first=Rahul |date=20 June 2020 |title='No restrictions on using firearms': India gives soldiers freedom along LAC in extraordinary times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/no-restrictions-on-firearms-india-gives-soldiers-freedom-along-lac-in-extraordinary-times/story-pCcFAcSAkMRschq50Tom1L.html |access-date=21 June 2020 |website=Hindustan Times}}</ref> Satellite images analysed by the [[Australian Strategic Policy Institute]] show that China increased construction in the Galwan valley since the 15 June skirmish.<ref name="TheWire-2020">{{Cite web |date=25 June 2020 |title=China Ups Rhetoric, Warns India of 'Severe Consequences' for Violent Clash |url=https://thewire.in/diplomacy/india-china-beijing-rhetoric-clash-diplomatic-talks |access-date=25 June 2020 |website=The Wire}}</ref> The Chinese post that was destroyed by Indian troops on 15 June was reconstructed by 22 June, with an expansion in size and with more military movement. Other new defensive positions by both Indian and Chinese forces have also been built in the valley.<ref>{{Cite news |date=24 June 2020 |title=Ladakh face-off {{!}} Destroyed Chinese post back in Galwan Valley |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ladakh-face-off-destroyed-chinese-post-back-in-galwan-valley/article31908779.ece |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=25 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200625035207/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ladakh-face-off-destroyed-chinese-post-back-in-galwan-valley/article31908779.ece |archive-date=25 June 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref>

==== Depsang Plains ====
[[File:Depsang-Bulge-mouth-2020.jpg|thumb|right|275px|The LAC across Raki Nala; the prevailing LAC in red and the Chinese claims in green]]
India–China tension at [[Depsang Bulge|Depsang]] started months before the May 2020 standoff.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Philip |first=Snehesh Alex |date=8 August 2020 |title=India-China tensions at Depsang, a disengagement sticking point, began much before May |url=https://theprint.in/defence/india-china-tensions-at-depsang-a-disengagement-sticking-point-began-much-before-may/477612/ |access-date=8 August 2020 |website=ThePrint |language=en-US}}</ref> Chinese presence, {{Convert|18|km|mi|abbr=on}} inside the Indian perception of the LAC, near the Y-junction or Bottleneck on [[Raki Nala]] south the [[Depsang Plains]],{{efn|The Raki Nala originates in Aksai Chin plains and joins the Burtsa Nala in Ladakh. It was also the site of the [[2013 Depsang standoff]].}} was reported by Indian media on 25 June 2020. The reports described movement of troops, heavy vehicles and military equipment. The Chinese claim lines are 5&nbsp;km further west of bottleneck.<ref name="SinghS-2020c">{{Cite web |last=Singh |first=Sushant |date=25 June 2020 |title=Closer to strategic DBO, China opens new front at Depsang |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-china-border-line-of-actual-control-closer-to-strategic-dbo-chinese-army-attempts-ingress-via-depsang-plains-6474740/ |access-date=25 June 2020 |website=The Indian Express}}</ref> Indian [[Patrol Point]]s (PP) 10, 11, 11A, 12 have been blocked by PLA movement and construction at the Y-junction since March–April 2020.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Swami |first=Praveen |author-link=Praveen Swami |date=24 June 2020 |title=As PLA Seeks to Cut Off Indian Patrol Routes on LAC, 'Bottleneck' Emerges as Roadblock in Disengagement |url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/as-pla-seeks-to-cut-off-indian-patrol-routes-on-lac-bottleneck-emerges-as-roadblock-in-disengagement-2685571.html |access-date=26 June 2020 |website=News18}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Subramanian |first1=Nirupama |last2=Kaushik |first2=Krishn |date=20 September 2020 |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/ |access-date=21 February 2021 |website=[[Indian Express]]}}</ref> Intelligence inputs on 31 August 2020 put the Chinese control of territory within the India's perception of the LAC at about {{Convert|900|km2|sqmi|abbr=}}.<ref name="China occupied area" /><ref name="DepsangOccupy">{{Cite news |last=Singh |first=Sushant |date=17 September 2020 |title=What Rajnath Left Out: PLA Blocks Access to 900 Sq Km of Indian Territory in Depsang |work=[[The Wire (India)]] |url=https://thewire.in/diplomacy/depsang-ladakh-india-china-rajnath-singh-parliament |access-date=17 September 2020}}</ref>

=== Ongoing construction of infrastructure ===
{{Further|India-China border infrastructure|List of dams on the Brahmaputra River|label2=List of hydro-infrastructure on the Brahmaputra River}}
China and India have both been constructing infrastructure along the borders aimed at augmenting strategic capabilities. This includes infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific region.<ref name="Gupta-2020">{{Cite web |last=Gupta |first=Shishir |date=24 August 2020 |title=India's answer to China-backed Thai Canal plan is a huge military upgrade in islands |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/china-s-thai-canal-project-propels-india-to-upgrade-military-infra-in-a-n-lakshadweep/story-EcDEGU2XXGgwdJmRNwm4LN.html |access-date=1 September 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref> Following Chinese announcements of more dam construction on the [[Brahmaputra River]], India said that it would need to build a dam along the river to mitigate the negative effects of the Chinese dam construction.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2 December 2020 |title=India plans dam on Brahmaputra river against Chinese projects |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/2/india-plans-dam-on-brahmaputra-to-offset-chinese-plans |access-date=8 December 2020 |website=Al Jazeera |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=4 December 2020 |title=China's plans for gigantic Brahmaputra dam strains relations with India further |url=https://www.eco-business.com/news/chinas-plans-for-gigantic-brahmaputra-dam-strains-relations-with-india-further/ |access-date=8 December 2020 |website=the third pole |language=en |via=Eco-Business}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Karmakar |first=Rahul |date=25 November 2014 |title=Assam protests China dam on upper Brahmaputra |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/assam-protests-china-dam-on-upper-brahmaputra/story-Ar1t9f1ciAxUn14Z7ZOxKL.html |access-date=8 December 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref> This construction has continued throughout 2020 and 2021.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Irfan |first1=Shams |last2=Shih |first2=Gerry |date=22 December 2021 |title=On volatile border between India and China, a high-altitude military buildup is underway |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/22/india-china-border-standoff/ |url-access=subscription |access-date=23 December 2021 |issn=0190-8286}}</ref>

;India
{{See also|India-China Border Roads}}
Amid the standoff, India decided to move approximately 12,000 additional workers to border regions to help complete Indian road projects.<ref name="SinghR-2020a" /><ref name="Ray-2020" /> Around 8,000 workers would help [[Border Roads Organisation]]'s (BRO) infrastructure project, Project Vijayak, in Ladakh while some workers would also be allocated to other nearby border areas.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fayyaz |first=Ahmed Ali |date=21 June 2020 |title=Unfazed by China Threat, 10k Men Working on BRO Projects in Ladakh |url=https://www.thequint.com/news/india/unfazed-by-china-threat-10000-men-working-on-bro-projects-in-ladakh |access-date=27 June 2020 |website=The Quint}}</ref> The workers would reach Ladakh between 15 June and 5 July.<ref name="Kumar-2020" /> The first train with over 1,600 workers left Jharkhand on 14 June 2020 for [[Udhampur]], and from there the workers went on to assist BRO at the Sino-Indian border.<ref name="Kumar-2020" /><ref name="News18-2020">{{Cite news |date=15 June 2020 |title=Special Train Carrying Construction Workers For BRO Work in Ladakh Reaches J&K's Udhampur |work=[[News18]] |url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/special-train-carrying-construction-workers-for-bro-work-in-ladakh-reaches-jks-udhampur-2671073.html |access-date=15 June 2020}}</ref> Apart from completing the DS–DBO Road the workers would also be assisting the BRO in the construction of other border roads.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Gurung |first=Shaurya Karanbir |date=13 June 2020 |title=3,500 Jharkhand workers to be hired for Ladakh road projects |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/3500-jharkhand-workers-to-be-hired-for-ladakh-road-projects/articleshow/76347531.cms |access-date=19 June 2020}}</ref> 

Starting from June, the government announced up to 170% increase in minimum wages for those working along the India-China border, with the highest increase in wages going to employees in Ladakh.<ref>{{Cite web |date=26 June 2020 |editor-last=Chaturvedi |editor-first=Amit |title=Govt gives salary hike of upto 170% to people working on building roads in border areas: Report |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/govt-gives-salary-hike-of-upto-170-to-people-working-on-building-roads-in-border-areas-report/story-pFu1xNaNQEILppoIbrONBL.html |access-date=27 June 2020 |website=Hindustan Times}}</ref> Experts state that the development of Indian infrastructure along the border was one of the causes for the standoffs.<ref name="SinghS-2020d" /> ''[[LiveMint|Livemint]]'' reports "that while such asset creation might be adding to India's strategic capital, it is not furthering its human capital the same way."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Agrawal |first=Rangoli |date=26 August 2020 |title=Are border development works driving India-China conflict? |url=https://www.livemint.com/news/india/are-border-development-works-driving-india-china-conflict-11598428065277.html |access-date=26 August 2020 |website=Livemint |language=en}}</ref> India has also installed surveillance equipment along the LAC.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Singh |first=Vijaita |date=1 September 2020 |title=Surveillance camera at South Bank of Pangong Tso caught Chinese movement, says govt. official |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/surveillance-camera-caught-chinese-movement-says-govt-official/article32499044.ece |access-date=2 September 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref> In October 2021, environmental clearance was given for the construction of new border outposts, including at locations where tensions with China have increased.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Vishnoi |first=Anubhuti |date=15 October 2021 |title=Green clearance for 38 outposts in Arunachal, Ladakh along China border |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/green-clearance-for-38-outposts-in-arunachal-ladakh-along-china-border/articleshow/87047858.cms?from=mdr |access-date=23 December 2021}}</ref> At the end of 2021, India inaugurated a number of border roads and bridges, including the [[Umling La]] section of the Chisumle-Demchok road.<ref>{{Cite web |date=29 December 2021 |title=Amid Ladakh standoff, India inaugurates world's highest motorable road: 5 points |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/amid-ladakh-standoff-india-inaugurates-world-s-highest-motorable-road-5-points-101640761538735.html |access-date=8 January 2022 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref>

;China
{{overlay
| image        = ISS054-E-7809 - View of Earth.jpg
| width        = 320
| height       = 213
| float        = right
| overlay1     = New bridge
| overlay1colour = red
| overlay1tip  = New bridge
| overlay1left = 100
| overlay1top  = 90
}}
Throughout the standoff China continued to build infrastructure near the LAC.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Philip |first=Snehesh Alex |date=22 August 2020 |title=China digs heels in for winter, continues building roads and bridges on own side of LAC |url=https://theprint.in/defence/china-digs-heels-in-for-winter-continues-building-roads-and-bridges-on-own-side-of-lac/487340/ |access-date=26 August 2020 |website=ThePrint}}</ref> Infrastructure includes roads, bridges, helipads and other military infrastructure such as camps. [[Optical fibre cable]]s are being laid for its frontline troops at the faceoff sites in Pangong Tso and Gogra-Hot Springs area.<ref name="Pandit-2020b">{{Cite web |last=Pandit |first=Rajat |date=23 August 2020 |title=India China border news: China refuses to budge, continues infrastructure build-up along LAC |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/china-not-budging-infra-build-up-on-along-lac/articleshow/77698219.cms |access-date=26 August 2020 |website=The Times of India}}</ref> Two new [[marina]]s at Pangong Tso have also been built.<ref name="Gettleman-2020">{{Cite news |last1=Gettleman |first1=Jeffrey |last2=Yasir |first2=Sameer |last3=Kumar |first3=Hari |date=31 August 2020 |title=India and China Face Off Again at Border as Troops Move In |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/31/world/asia/india-china-troops-border.html |access-date=3 September 2020 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> China has installed cameras, motion sensors and other surveillance equipment along the LAC.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rai |first=Arpan |date=1 September 2020 |title=Despite Chinese cameras and sensors, Indian troops managed to beat PLA in occupying height |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/despite-chinese-cameras-and-sensors-indian-troops-managed-to-beat-pla-in-occupying-height/story-Gw4sfjLvYX09hyUU7vag9O.html |access-date=2 September 2020 |website=Hindustan Times}}</ref> Airbases in Xinjiang and Tibet are being further developed; this includes airbases at [[Hotan Airport|Hotan]], [[Kashgar Airport|Kashgar]], [[Ngari Gunsa Airport|Gargunsa]], [[Lhasa Gonggar Airport|Lhasa-Gonggar]] and [[Shigatse Peace Airport|Shigatse]].<ref name="Pandit-2020b" /> 

At [[Kailash mansarovar|Kailash-Mansarovar]], near the [[Lipulekh Pass|Lipulekh pass]], China is building a surface-to-air missile site.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Dutta |first=Amrita Nayak |date=20 August 2020 |title=Satellite images reveal China is building surface-to-air missile site at Mansarovar Lake |url=https://theprint.in/defence/satellite-images-reveal-china-is-building-surface-to-air-missile-site-at-mansarovar-lake/486091/ |access-date=31 August 2020 |website=ThePrint |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=31 August 2020 |title=Amid border tensions with India, China constructs missile site at Kailash-Mansarovar |work=The Economic Times |agency=ANI |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/amid-border-tensions-with-india-china-constructs-missile-site-at-kailash-mansarovar/articleshow/77849618.cms |access-date=31 August 2020}}</ref> China is also developing a [[5G]] network for its troops along the LAC.<ref>{{Cite web |date=28 August 2020 |title=India China border news: China builds 5G infra along LAC, fresh construction at Pangong Tso |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/china-builds-5g-infra-along-lac-fresh-construction-at-pangong-tso/articleshow/77801220.cms |access-date=9 September 2020 |website=The Times of India |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Bhalla |first=Abhishek |date=28 August 2020 |title=China digs in with 5G network at Ladakh border, new construction at Pangong Lake |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/china-digs-in-with-5g-network-at-ladakh-border-new-construction-at-pangong-lake-1716076-2020-08-28 |access-date=9 September 2020 |website=India Today}}</ref> Reports of China deploying satellite jammers along the border was also reported.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gupta |first=Shishir |date=23 October 2020 |title=China builds new structures near LAC, relocates troops. India reads a message |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-spots-movement-across-lac-china-is-building-new-structures-relocating-troops/story-DIe6zUzawUyTwEBrakZ45K.html |access-date=28 November 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref> In July, ''[[Stratfor]]'' reported that the Chinese military had built 26 new temporary barracks and 22 new bases along the Indian border; "a mix of permanent and semi-permanent positions".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Krishnan |first=Ananth |date=24 July 2020 |title=China yet to disengage from most LAC spots, says new report |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/china-yet-to-disengage-from-most-lac-spots-says-new-report/article32186068.ece |access-date=24 September 2020 |quote=The constructions were "a mix of permanent and semi-permanent positions," Sim Tack, the author of the report{{nbsp}}... told The Hindu.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Tack |first=Sim |date=22 July 2020 |title=The Nature of China's Military Push Along the Indian Border |url=https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/nature-chinas-military-push-along-indian-border |url-access=subscription |access-date=24 September 2020 |website=Stratfor}}</ref> In September, ''Stratfor'' reported that since the beginning of the standoff, the construction of four new heliports has started. The report by Sim Tack notes that this buildup by China in the Himalayas is similar to Chinese strategy in the South China Sea, a strategy that considerably increases the cost for those trying to oppose China's claims.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Tack |first=Sim |date=22 September 2020 |title=A Military Drive Spells Out China's Intent Along the Indian Border |url=https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/military-drive-spells-out-chinas-intent-along-indian-border |url-access=subscription |access-date=24 September 2020 |website=[[Stratfor]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Peri |first=Dinakar |date=22 September 2020 |title=Ladakh standoff – India, China agree to stop sending more troops to frontline |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ladakh-standoff-new-army-talks-positive-but-no-breakthrough-on-de-escalation/article32667313.ece |access-date=24 September 2020}}</ref>

In November, China reportedly constructed [[Pangda|Pangda village]] 2&nbsp;km within Bhutan's territory and 9&nbsp;km from the 2017 Doklam standoff site,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Som |first=Vishnu |author-link=Vishnu Som |date=20 November 2020 |title=China Sets Up Village Within Bhutan, 9 Km From Doklam Face-Off Site |url=https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/china-sets-up-village-within-bhutan-9-km-from-doklam-face-off-site-2327563 |access-date=24 November 2020 |website=NDTV}}</ref> to which the Bhutanese ambassador to India responded with "there is no Chinese village inside Bhutan."<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Griffiths |first1=James |last2=Suri |first2=Manveena |date=24 November 2020 |title=Satellite images appear to show China developing area along disputed border with India and Bhutan |work=[[CNN]] |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/24/asia/china-india-bhutan-doklam-intl-hnk/index.html |access-date=9 December 2020 |quote=In a statement, Bhutan's ambassador to India, Major General Vetsop Namgyel, said "there is no Chinese village inside Bhutan." China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that "China's normal construction activities on its own territory are entirely within the scope of China's sovereignty, and there is nothing wrong with it."}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=20 November 2020 |title=China's media show new Bhutan border village built in disputed territory |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/bhutan-denies-chinese-village-in-its-territory/article33144172.ece |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=9 December 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201120184131/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/bhutan-denies-chinese-village-in-its-territory/article33144172.ece |archive-date=20 November 2020 |quote=Reports showing the construction of a Chinese village inside sovereign Bhutanese territory are incorrect, the envoy of Bhutan has told ''The Hindu''.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Zhen |first1=Liu |last2=Purohit |first2=Kunal |date=6 December 2020 |title=Near the China-Bhutan-India border, a new village is drawing attention to old disputes |work=South China Morning Post |url=https://scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3112712/near-china-bhutan-india-border-new-village-drawing-attention |access-date=9 December 2020 |quote=Bhutanese ambassador to India Vetsop Namgyel rejected the Indian reports about the village, saying "there is no Chinese village inside Bhutan".{{nbsp}}... The Chinese foreign ministry said the construction was in China's territory.}}</ref> New Chinese ammunition bunkers were also reported 7&nbsp;km from the 2017 site.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Som |first=Vishnu |date=23 November 2020 |title=New Chinese Ammunition Bunkers Seen 7 Km From 2017 Doklam Face-Off Site |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/new-chinese-ammunition-bunkers-seen-7-km-from-2017-doklam-face-off-site-2329067 |access-date=24 November 2020 |website=NDTV}}</ref> A few weeks later, reports emerged of China having constructed three villages near [[Bum La Pass|Bum La pass]]. Lying within Chinese territory, the villages were reportedly being constructed while Chinese and Indian soldiers face off in eastern Ladakh.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Som |first=Vishnu |date=6 December 2020 |title=Exclusive: China Sets Up 3 Villages Near Arunachal, Relocates Villagers |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/exclusive-china-sets-up-3-villages-near-arunachal-pradesh-relocates-villagers-2334869 |access-date=6 December 2020 |website=NDTV}}</ref> This was followed by reports in January 2021 of the construction of another village in disputed territory along the border in [[Upper Subansiri district]].<ref name="Som-2021">{{Cite web |last=Som |first=Vishnu |date=18 January 2021 |title=Exclusive: China Has Built Village In Arunachal, Show Satellite Images |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/china-has-built-village-in-arunachal-pradesh-show-satellite-images-exclusive-2354154 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210118090826/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/china-has-built-village-in-arunachal-pradesh-show-satellite-images-exclusive-2354154 |archive-date=18 January 2021 |access-date=22 January 2021 |website=NDTV}}</ref><ref name="Patranobis-2021">{{Cite web |last=Patranobis |first=Sutirtho |date=22 January 2021 |title='Construction in our own territory': China on Arunachal village report |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/construction-in-our-own-territory-china-on-arunachal-village-report-101611278481343.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210122012946/https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/construction-in-our-own-territory-china-on-arunachal-village-report-101611278481343.html |archive-date=22 January 2021 |access-date=22 January 2021 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref> Another new Chinese enclave (supposedly) in Arunachal's [[Shi Yomi district]] was reported in November 2021.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Som |first=Vishnu |date=18 November 2021 |title=Second China-Constructed Enclave In Arunachal, Show New Satellite Images |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/second-china-constructed-enclave-in-arunachal-show-new-satellite-images-2613160 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211118082445/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/second-china-constructed-enclave-in-arunachal-show-new-satellite-images-2613160 |archive-date=18 November 2021 |access-date=22 November 2021 |website=NDTV}}</ref> During the standoff, China started building a bridge across the Pangong lake.<ref>{{Cite web |date=7 December 2022 |title=Chinese bridge across Pangong Tso lake is in illegally occupied territory, says India |url=https://scroll.in/latest/1014489/chinese-bridge-across-pangong-tso-lake-is-in-illegally-occupied-territory-says-india |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220107033950/https://scroll.in/latest/1014489/chinese-bridge-across-pangong-tso-lake-is-in-illegally-occupied-territory-says-india |archive-date=7 January 2022 |access-date=8 January 2022 |website=Scroll.in |language=en-US}}</ref>
{{OSM Location map
| float = right
| height= 220
| width= 240
| zoom = 9  <!--(1=whole world, 18=a street)-->
| caption = The new village is located between [[Longju]] and Maja.{{efn|The border is the [[Line of Actual Control]] between China and India as marked by the contributors to the OpenStreetMap.}}<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 2019 |title=Asian Alpine E-News Issue No. 45 |url=https://asian-alpine-e-news.com/asian_alpine_e-new_issue_no45.pdf |access-date=22 January 2021 |page=8}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IjFuAAAAMAAJ&q=Gelemo |title=The Himalayan Journal, Volume 62 |year=1929 |isbn=978-0-19-568743-9 |pages=72, 80 |access-date=22 January 2021}}</ref> Longju is in Indian territory according to Indian claims, occupied by the Chinese since 1959.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Gurung |first=Shaurya Karanbir |date=12 July 2018 |title=India-China row: 8 disputed border areas that China claims as its own |agency=Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/row-with-china-present-tense/articleshow/59729345.cms?from=mdr |access-date=22 January 2021 |quote=Longju—Located in the Upper Subansiri Division, it is opposite the Chinese military posts in Migyitun, Tibet. First armed clash (Aug 25, 1959) between PLA and 9 Assam Rifles took place here. Since then India did not reoccupy Longju and instead set up a post at Maja, 10&nbsp;km south of Longju.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Subansiri Map |url=https://www.claudearpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Subansiri.pdf |access-date=22 January 2021 |website=[[Claude Arpi]]}}</ref> (Borders present/missing as per OSM editors)
| coord = {{coord|28.5182|93.4167}}
| nolabels = 1
|mark-coord ={{coord|28.6060788|93.4003122}} |label=New Chinese village |label-size=9 |label-pos=right |mark-size=8 |mark =Blue pog.svg |mark-title=New Chinese village |mark-description=|  label-color = blue

|mark-coord1={{coord|28.3691990|93.6114549}} |caption1=Limeking |label1=Limeking |label-size1=9 |label-pos1=left |mark-size1=8 |mark-title1=Limeking |mark-description1=

|mark-coord2={{coord|28.3631529|93.4766991}} |caption2=Tame Chung Chung |label2=Tame Chung Chung |label-size2=9 |label-pos2=bottom  |mark-size2=8 |mark2=Red pog.svg |mark-title2=Tame Chung Chung |mark-description2=

|mark-coord3={{coord|28.43501|93.20192}} |caption3=Taksing |label3=Taksing |label-size3=9 |label-pos3=top  |mark-size3=8 |mark3=Red pog.svg |mark-title3=Taksing |mark-description3=

|mark-coord4={{coord|28.5610165|93.4282422}} |caption4=Maja |label4=Maja |label-size4=9 |label-pos4=bottom  |mark-size4=8 |mark4=Red pog.svg |mark-title4=Maja |mark-description4=

|mark-coord5={{coord|28.4564983|93.4620422}} |caption5=Mosing |label5=Mosing |label-size5=9 |label-pos5=right  |mark-size5=8 |mark5=Red pog.svg |mark-title5=Mosing |mark-description5=

|mark-coord6={{coord|28.5817779|93.4111130}} |caption6=Xingqiangpu Zhang |label6=Xingqiangpu Zhang |label-size6=9 |label-pos6=right  |mark-size6=8 |mark6=Red pog.svg |mark-title6=Mosing |mark-description6=

|mark-coord7= |caption7= |label7= |label-size7=11 |label-pos7=left  |mark-size7=8 |mark7=Red pog.svg |mark-title7= |mark-description7=

|mark-coord8={{coord|28.6404479|93.3817051}} |caption8=Longju |label8=Longju |label-size8=9 |label-pos8=left  |mark-size8=8 |mark8=Red pog.svg |mark-title8=Longju |mark-description8=

|mark-coord9={{coord|28.3721762|93.4835391}} |caption9=Gelensiniak |label9=Gelensiniak |label-size9=9 |label-pos9=left  |mark-size9=8 |mark9=Red pog.svg |mark-title9=Gelensiniak |mark-description9=

|mark-coord10={{coord|28.660275|93.373529}} |caption10=Migyitun |label10=Migyitun |label-size10=9 |label-pos10=top  |mark-size10=8 |mark10=Red pog.svg |mark-title10=Migyitun |mark-description10=
}}

=== Logistics ===
Following unsuccessful diplomatic talks and stalled military disengagement and de-escalation process, China and India prepared themselves to maintain sustained deployment in Ladakh throughout the winter.{{Efn|"...{{nbsp}}since 1984 till late 2019, some 869 soldiers had died on the Siachen Glacier spread across 76&nbsp;km at heights above 17,700 feet due to climatic conditions, analogous to portions of the LAC stretch{{nbsp}}..."<ref name="Bedi-2020" />|name=|group=}}<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Ellis-Petersen |first1=Hannah |last2=Hassan |first2=Aakash |date=20 September 2020 |title=Villagers help Indian troops face Chinese forces in Himalayas |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/20/villagers-help-indian-troops-face-chinese-forces-in-himalayas |access-date=22 September 2020 |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref name="Bedi-2020b">{{Cite web |last=Bedi |first=Rahul |date=17 August 2020 |title=5 Rounds of Military Talks Later, Army Prepares for Long Winter Deployment at Ladakh |url=https://thewire.in/security/ladakh-indian-army-pla-winter-general-rawat |access-date=10 September 2020 |website=The Wire}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Punohit |first=Kunal |date=13 August 2020 |title=China-India border row: no sign of progress as winter looms |publisher=South China Morning Post |url=https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3097118/china-india-border-row-no-sign-progress-winter-looms |access-date=13 August 2020}}</ref><ref name="SinghS-2020e">{{Cite web |last=Singh |first=Sushant |date=1 August 2020 |title=Army to retain additional troops in Ladakh for the long haul |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-china-border-dispute-ladakh-indian-army-6533338/ |access-date=1 August 2020 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref> Temperatures in parts of Aksai Chin and Ladakh, a high altitude cold desert, drops as low as -40&nbsp;°C. While some areas of the region see heavy snowfall, eastern Ladakh sees winds of up to 60 kmph. Shyok River in Pangong Tso freezes, as does water in pipes.<ref name="Unnithan-2020a">{{Cite web |last=Unnithan |first=Sandeep |date=19 September 2020 |title=Ladakh's cold war |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/ground-zero/story/20200928-ladakh-rsquo-s-cold-war-1723080-2020-09-19 |access-date=22 September 2020 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref>

A large part of the logistical requirements on the Indian side is in the form of fuel, oil and lubricants (FOLs). Oil is used for firing [[Bukhari (heater)|''bukharis'']] and cooking food as well as melting snow for drinking water and for barracks with heating systems. Arctic tents and winter clothing have been stocked. Nutritional requirements are met through provisions including 22 types of rice, pulses and wheat, 65 necessary food items, perishables such as vegetables; and high-calorie foods for deployment of {{Convert|18000|feet|m|abbr=}} and above. A single soldier requires approximately 800&nbsp;kg of provisions to last through winter. Arms and ammunition have been stockpiled.<ref name="Unnithan-2020a" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=16 September 2020 |title=Troops prepare to dig in for winter amid standoff |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/troops-prepare-to-dig-in-for-winter-amid-standoff/story-Wtn44Z99ZWuRywNtN1xOGN.html |access-date=22 September 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Siddiqui |first=Huma |date=26 August 2020 |title=India-China standoff: Special clothing, diet for the Indian Army troops this winter along LAC |url=https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/india-china-standoff-special-clothing-diet-for-the-indian-army-troops-this-winter-along-lac/2065936/ |access-date=10 September 2020 |website=The Financial Express |language=en-US}}</ref> 

Local resources in Ladakh are limited, so everything comes from the plains.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sandhu |first=Balbir Singh |date=27 July 2020 |title=Providing logistics in Ladakh a test of mettle |url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/providing-logistics-in-ladakh-a-test-of-mettle-118396 |access-date=11 September 2020 |website=Tribuneindia News Service |language=en}}</ref> Extra engineering forces have been tasked with providing additional barracks for the troops;<ref>{{Cite news |last=Peri |first=Dinakar |date=19 September 2020 |title=Army races to complete stocking in Ladakh ahead of winter |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/army-races-to-complete-stocking-in-ladakh-ahead-of-winter/article32649397.ece |access-date=22 September 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref> by mid–November it was reported that the army has completed the construction of "habitat facilities" in Ladakh.<ref>{{Cite web |date=18 November 2020 |title=With Beds and Heated Tents, Army Sets up Living Facilities for Troops in Ladakh amid Tussle with China |url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/with-beds-heaters-and-cupboards-army-completes-construction-for-troops-in-ladakh-amid-border-row-with-china-3092567.html |access-date=25 November 2020 |website=News18 |language=en}}</ref> According to former Army Deputy Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General J.P. Singh, winter deployment along the LAC will financially [[Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts|bleed India]] by forcing construction of new infrastructure, recurring expenses such as additional truck and aircraft movement, and purchase of off-the-shelf winter equipment; in turn affecting other expenses such as modernisation plans.{{efn|An hour long flight to the LAC costs {{INRConvert|24|l|lk=on|year=2020}} while 45 minutes of helicopter movement in the border areas costs around {{INRConvert|4|l|lk=on|year=2020}}.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sagar |first=Pradip R |date=23 August 2020 |title=Winter is coming |url=https://www.theweek.in/theweek/current/2020/08/13/winter-is-coming.html |access-date=10 September 2020 |website=The Week |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=24 July 2020 |title=What a winter deployment at the LAC entails – Escalating tensions |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/what-a-winter-deployment-at-the-lac-entails/additional-costs/slideshow/77139066.cms |access-date=10 September 2020 |website=The Economic Times}}</ref> Major General A P Singh, former head of logistics of [[XIV Corps (India)|XIV Corps]], says that for one year the minimum cost of maintaining one soldier along the LAC is {{INRConvert|10|l|lk=on|year=2020}}.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kaushik |first=Krishn |date=25 July 2020 |title=Explained: Why it is a challenge maintaining troops on LAC |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/india-army-lac-troops-china-ladakh-6520663/ |access-date=10 September 2020 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref>}}<ref name="Bedi-2020">{{Cite web |last=Bedi |first=Rahul |date=23 July 2020 |title=Increasing LAC Deployment This Winter Will Be an Expensive Affair for Indian Army |url=https://thewire.in/security/indian-army-lac-china-deployment-expensive |access-date=10 September 2020 |website=The Wire}}</ref><ref name="Bedi-2020b" /> 

Amidst the standoff, India completed military logistics sharing agreements with partners in the [[Quadrilateral Security Dialogue|Quad]]— Japan, Australia and United States.<ref name="Bhaumik-2020-1">{{Cite web |last=Bhaumik |first=Anirban |date=10 September 2020 |title=India opens its army, navy and air bases for Japan; adds military heft to Quad amid stand-off with China |url=https://www.deccanherald.com/national/india-opens-its-army-navy-and-air-bases-for-japan-adds-military-heft-to-quad-amid-stand-off-with-china-885480.html |access-date=11 September 2020 |website=Deccan Herald |language=en}}</ref> DRDO has developed a number of products for troops in Ladakh such as a new buhkari called Him Tapaak.<ref>{{Cite web |date=10 January 2021 |title=DRDO develops products to help Indian army battle extreme cold in Eastern Ladakh |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/drdo-develops-products-to-help-indian-army-battle-extreme-cold-in-eastern-ladakh-101610278861375.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210110120925/https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/drdo-develops-products-to-help-indian-army-battle-extreme-cold-in-eastern-ladakh-101610278861375.html |archive-date=10 January 2021 |access-date=11 January 2021 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref> There has been considerable delays of several years in construction of border outposts for the ITBP.<ref>{{Cite web |date=19 September 2021 |title=Ministries Spar as Ladakh Border Outposts Project Fails to Yield Desired Results: Report |url=https://thewire.in/government/ministries-spar-as-ladakh-border-outposts-project-fails-to-yield-desired-results-report |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210920200442/https://thewire.in/government/ministries-spar-as-ladakh-border-outposts-project-fails-to-yield-desired-results-report |archive-date=20 September 2021 |access-date=22 September 2021 |website=The Wire}}</ref>

The ''[[People's Daily]]'' reported that the PLA has been constructing new infrastructure for the winter, such as pre-fabricated shelters, and conducting drills using drones to deliver hot meals to frontline troops.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Mengzhuo |first1=Yang |last2=Yaxuan |first2=Yu |date=11 September 2020 |title=Chinese PLA conducts drill of delivering food by drone |url=https://peoplesdaily.pdnews.cn/trending/chinese-pla-conducts-drill-of-delivering-food-by-drone-175228.html |access-date=11 September 2020 |website=People's Daily |language=en}}</ref> China is also seeking to set up military logistics facilities in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2 September 2020 |title=China Seeks To Set Up Military Facilities In Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar: Pentagon |url=https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/china-seeks-to-set-up-military-facilities-in-pakistan-sri-lanka-myanmar-pentagon-2289515 |access-date=22 September 2020 |website=NDTV}}</ref>

=== War of attrition ===
Reports citing Indian army sources point to the daily [[Attrition warfare|attrition]] due to the heights and cold.<ref name="Kaushik-2020d">{{Cite web |last1=Kaushik |first1=Krishn |last2=Subramanian |first2=Nirupama |date=29 November 2020 |title=Winter at LAC |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/lac-winter-china-ladakh-border-indian-army-7072185/ |access-date=29 November 2020 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref> This attrition is "within the expected ratio"{{Efn|Till 2010s, the attrition rate was around 20%. In the 1962 war there were "nearly equal number of casualties suffered by the Indians were weather casualties".<ref name="Kaushik-2020d" />|name=|group=}} and those who recover are redeployed. The Chinese side faces similar situations.<ref name="Kaushik-2020d" /> Commentators are pointing out that this is becoming or has already become a [[war of attrition]];<ref>{{Cite web |last=Chan |first=Minnie |date=25 September 2020 |title=As brutal winter looms, China and India rush to send border troops supplies |url=https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3102927/china-india-send-supplies-thousands-border-troops-ahead-brutal |access-date=29 November 2020 |website=South China Morning Post |language=en |quote=...{{nbsp}}they realise the freezing confrontation over winter will become a "war of attrition", said Rajeev Ranjan Chaturvedy, a military expert in New Delhi.}}</ref> this includes Yun Sun, a China specialist at the [[Stimson Center]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Basu |first=Nayanima |date=21 September 2020 |title=Beijing is probably aiming for its LAC claim of 1959, China expert Yun Sun says |url=https://theprint.in/theprint-interview/beijing-is-probably-aiming-for-its-lac-claim-of-1959-china-expert-yun-sun-says/507207/ |access-date=29 November 2020 |website=ThePrint |language=en-US}}</ref> and [[Srikanth Kondapalli]], a professor of Chinese studies at JNU.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Krishnan |first=Murali |date=10 November 2020 |title=India-China Himalaya conflict: Does Beijing have an advantage after talks stall? |url=https://www.dw.com/en/india-china-military-standoff-continues/a-55553845 |access-date=29 November 2020 |website=DW |language=en-GB |quote=...{{nbsp}}Srikanth Kondapalli, a professor of Chinese studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, told DW.{{nbsp}}... "It looks like China is trying to use a war of attrition to wear down the Indian forces," he added.}}</ref> Other border forces such as the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) also face attrition related challenges.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Tripathi |first=Rahul |date=6 November 2020 |title=High attrition rate due to inclement weather a serious concern in ITBP, House panel told |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/high-attrition-rate-due-to-inclement-weather-a-serious-concern-in-itbp-house-panel-told/articleshow/79072956.cms?from=mdr |access-date=29 November 2020}}</ref>

=== Cyber attacks ===
Following escalation in 2020, reports of cyber attacks increased.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kaushik |first=Manu |date=24 June 2020 |title=200% rise in cyberattacks from China in a month; India tops hit list post Galwan face-off |url=https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/200-percent-rise-in-cyberattacks-from-china-in-a-month-india-tops-hit-list-post-galwan-face-off/story/407806.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200624014652/https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/200-percent-rise-in-cyberattacks-from-china-in-a-month-india-tops-hit-list-post-galwan-face-off/story/407806.html |archive-date=24 June 2020 |access-date=1 March 2021 |website=Business Today}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=23 June 2020 |title=Rise In Cyber Attacks From China, Over 40,000 Cases In 5 Days: Official |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/rise-in-cyber-attacks-from-china-over-40-000-cases-in-5-days-official-2251111 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200623175707/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/rise-in-cyber-attacks-from-china-over-40-000-cases-in-5-days-official-2251111 |archive-date=23 June 2020 |access-date=1 March 2021 |website=NDTV}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Kannan |first=Saikiran |date=6 August 2020 |title=Inside China's cyber war room: How PLA is plotting global attacks |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/inside-china-s-cyber-war-room-how-pla-is-plotting-global-attacks-1708292-2020-08-06 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200806201312/https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/inside-china-s-cyber-war-room-how-pla-is-plotting-global-attacks-1708292-2020-08-06 |archive-date=6 August 2020 |access-date=1 March 2021 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref> The Maharashtra cyber department suspected that a severe blackout in Mumbai on 13 October 2020 was caused by a malware attack.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Joshi |first1=Sahil |last2=Singh |first2=Divyesh |date=20 November 2020 |title=Mega Mumbai power outage may be result of cyber attack, final report awaited |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/mumbai-power-outage-malware-attack-1742538-2020-11-20 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201120072442/https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/mumbai-power-outage-malware-attack-1742538-2020-11-20 |archive-date=20 November 2020 |access-date=1 March 2021 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref> A February 2021 study by cybersecurity firm [[Recorded Future]] found that Chinese malware flowed into Indian electricity supply control systems after the skirmishes in 2020, though it did not validate a link between the malware and Mumbai power outage.<ref name="RecordedFutureNYT">{{Cite news |last1=Sanger |first1=David E. |last2=Schmall |first2=Emily |date=28 February 2021 |title=China Appears to Warn India: Push Too Hard and the Lights Could Go Out |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/28/us/politics/china-india-hacking-electricity.html |url-status=live |access-date=1 March 2021 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> At least 12 government organisations, mainly power utilities, were reported to have been attacked.<ref>{{Cite web |date=1 March 2021 |title=China's Hackers Target India's Power Supply, Massive Mumbai Blackout Was a Warning Shot |url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/at-least-12-indian-organisations-became-target-of-chinese-cyber-attacks-report-3485897.html |access-date=1 March 2021 |website=News18 |language=en}}</ref>

== Casualties and losses ==
{| class="wikitable"
|+Casualties and losses (including captured)
! rowspan="3" |Date
!{{Flag|India|name=Indian casualties}}
! colspan="5" |{{Flag|China|name=Chinese casualties}}
|-
! rowspan="2" |Per India
! rowspan="2" |Per China
! rowspan="2" |Per India
! colspan="3" |Other sources

|-
!US
!Russia
!Australia
|-
|10 May 2020
|4 injured<ref name=":casualtiesViaTribune" />
|
|7 injured<ref name="casualtiesViaCNN" />
|
|
|
|-
|15 June 2020
|20 killed (official statement)<ref name="20soldiers" /><ref name="Haidar-2020" /><br />76 injured (18 serious, 58 minor injuries)<ref name="OL1" /><br />10 captured (released on 18 June)<ref name="auto4"/><ref name="OL1" /><ref name="auto1"/><ref name="auto3"/>
|4 killed and 1 injured (official) <br /><ref name="auto"/><ref name="reuters.com" /><br />
|25–40 killed, 60+ casualties<ref name="sure"/><ref name="Chinese casualty count"/><ref name="43 casualties"/> Unconfirmed captured (later released)<ref name="DCCapturedChineseSoldiers20June"/>
|20–35 killed (per US Intelligence)<ref name="USNews1" /><ref name="Hindu35ChineseCasualties17June" /><ref name="auto2"/>
|45  killed (per [[TASS]], Russian state news agency, in an initial report, citing Indian sources)<ref name="TASS-2021" /><br />At least 45 killed (per [[TASS]], Russian state news agency, in a later report)<ref name="TASS-2021">{{Cite web |title=China, India commence withdrawal of forces from shared border – Chinese Defense Ministry |url=https://tass.com/world/1254813 |website=TASS News Agency}}</ref>
|At least 41 fatalities{{Efn|
*38 drowned, including Junior Sergeant Wang Zhuoran.
*3; PLA Battalion Commander Major Chen Hongjun, Private Chen Xiangrong and Junior Sergeant Xiao Siyuan; killed by Indian forces.
*Unknown number of soldiers, claimed to be numerous, who were pushed or fell to their deaths over steep cliff edges.<ref name=":theklaxon"/>}} (per ''The Klaxon'', Australian investigative newspaper)<ref name=":theklaxon" />
|-
|19 October 2020
|
|
|1 captured (later released)<ref name="indiatoday_2021-01-09"/>
|
|
|
|-
|9 January 2021
|
|
|1 captured (later released)<ref name="indiatoday_2021-01-09" />
|
|
|
|-
|20 January 2021
|4 injured<ref name="Indian soldiers thrash, push back C">{{Cite web |last=Shrivastava |first=Rahul |date=25 January 2021 |title=Indian soldiers thrash, push back Chinese soldiers at Naku La in Sikkim; Army issues statement |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/india-china-attempt-change-status-quo-lac-pla-soldiers-injured-nathu-la-indian-1762412-2021-01-25 |website=India Today}}</ref>
|
||20 injured<ref name="Indian soldiers thrash, push back C" />
|
|
|
|}

== Diplomatic response ==
[[File:The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi holding an All Party Meeting via video conferencing to discuss the situation in India-China border areas, in New Delhi on June 19, 2020.jpg|thumb|210px|alt=Prime Minister Modi and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman at PMO, Delhi|India's prime minister Narendra Modi holding a meeting with political parties via video conferencing to discuss the situation in Sino-Indian border areas on 19 June.]]
{{See also|Timeline of 2020 China–India border standoff|Sino-Indian border dispute#Dispute management and resolution mechanism}}

After the first melee took place, on 5–6 May 2020 at Pangong Tso, Foreign Secretary of India [[Harsh Vardhan Shringla]] called Sun Weidong, the Chinese ambassador to India.<ref name="Bagchi-2020">{{Cite news |last=Bagchi |first=Indrani |date=15 June 2020 |title=Jaishankar to meet China FM in virtual RIC meet on June 22 |work=The Times of India |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/jaishankar-to-meet-china-fm-in-virtual-ric-meet-on-june-22/articleshow/76377098.cms |access-date=16 June 2020}}</ref> Then, Ajit Doval reportedly talked to a top Chinese diplomat [[Yang Jiechi]].<ref name="Bagchi-2020" /> On 28 May, in a press conference, Indian spokesperson for the Ministry of External Affairs, [[Anurag Srivastava]], maintained that there were enough [[Sino-Indian border dispute#Dispute resolution mechanism|bilateral mechanisms]] to solve border disputes diplomatically.<ref name="Gill-2020">{{Cite news |last=Gill |first=Prabhjote |date=29 May 2020 |title=India says there are five treaties to push the Chinese army behind the Line of Actual Control⁠ – while experts tell Modi to remain cautious |work=[[Business Insider]] |url=https://www.businessinsider.in/defense/news/five-treaties-to-address-india-china-border-issue-experts-warn-modi-to-remain-cautious/articleshow/76085340.cms |access-date=3 June 2020}}</ref><ref name="Chaudhury-2020" /> (However, some critics say that these agreements are "deeply flawed".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Sudarshan |first=V. |date=1 June 2020 |title=A phantom called the Line of Actual Control |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-phantom-called-the-line-of-actual-control/article31717488.ece |access-date=3 June 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref>) The [[Border Personnel Meeting point|Border Personnel Meeting (BPM) points]] had rounds of military talks in May–June. First between colonels, then between brigadiers, and on 2 June, more than three rounds between major generals.<ref name="Mitra-2020">{{Cite news |last=Mitra |first=Devirupa |date=6 June 2020 |title=Ahead of Border Talks With China, India Still Unclear of Reason Behind Troops Stand-Off |work=[[The Wire (India)]] |url=https://thewire.in/external-affairs/exclusive-india-china-ladakh-border-dialogue |access-date=6 June 2020 |quote=On Saturday, Indian and Chinese military officials of Lieutenant General-rank are likely to meet at a border personnel meeting (BPM){{nbsp}}... The various BPM meetings – led first by colonels, then brigadiers and then finally over three rounds by major general-rank officers – have until now yielded no results. |archive-date=6 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200606082915/https://thewire.in/external-affairs/exclusive-india-china-ladakh-border-dialogue |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Gupta |first=Shishir |date=5 June 2020 |title=Ahead of today's meet over Ladakh standoff, India signals a realistic approach |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ahead-of-talks-with-china-over-ladakh-standoff-india-signals-a-realistic-approach/story-yhfSaZk0vucG6f1vPKZHrK.html |access-date=6 June 2020}}</ref> 

All these talks were unsuccessful. Some Indian military sources said that India was still unclear with China's demands. "When one wants to stall a process, one makes absurd demands{{nbsp}}... they purposefully made some unreasonable demands", said the sources.<ref name="Mitra-2020" /> On 6 June, commanders' talks took place at [[Chushul]]-[[Moldo]] BPM. The talks involved the Indian commander of Leh-headquartered [[XIV Corps (India)|XIV Corps]], Lt Gen [[Harinder Singh (general)|Harinder Singh]], and the Chinese commander of the [[Tibet Military District]] (South Xinjiang Military Region) Maj Gen Liu Lin.<ref name="Som-2020a">{{Cite news |last=Som |first=Vishnu |date=6 June 2020 |title=India, China Top Military-Level Talks Amid Stand-Off in Ladakh |publisher=NDTV |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-china-top-military-level-talks-today-amid-stand-off-in-ladakh-2241623 |access-date=6 June 2020}}</ref>

On 17 June 2020, Prime Minister Modi addressed the nation regarding the Galwan skirmish, giving a firm message directed at China over the deaths of Indian soldiers.<ref name="Laskar-2020">{{Cite web |last1=Laskar |first1=Rezaul H |last2=Singh |first2=Rahul |last3=Patranobis |first3=Sutirtho |date=18 June 2020 |title=India warns China of serious impact on ties, Modi talks of 'befitting' reply |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-warns-china-of-serious-impact-on-ties-modi-talks-of-befitting-reply/story-pWgAXVlQT7yeQnepFpzj3O.html |access-date=18 June 2020 |website=Hindustan Times}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Myers |first1=Steven Lee |last2=Abi-Habib |first2=Maria |last3=Gettleman |first3=Jeffrey |date=17 June 2020 |title=In China-India Clash, Two Nationalist Leaders With Little Room to Give |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/world/asia/china-india-border.html |access-date=18 June 2020 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> The first communication since the start of the border dispute between the foreign ministers of China, [[Wang Yi (politician)|Wang Yi]] and of India, [[S Jaishankar]] also happened after the Galwan skirmish.<ref name="Laskar-2020" /> Jaishankar accused the Chinese actions in Galwan to be "pre-meditated and planned".<ref name="Laskar-2020" /> On 20 June, Chinese social media platform [[WeChat]] removed the Indian Prime Minister's remarks on the Galwan skirmish,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Chinese social media deletes PM Modi, MEA's statements on India-China standoff |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/embassy-officials-say-chinese-media-has-deleted-pm-mea-s-statements-on-india-china-standoff-1691043-2020-06-20 |access-date=20 June 2020 |website=India Today}}</ref> which was uploaded by the Indian Embassy in China. The official statements of the Ministry of External Affairs were also removed. WeChat said that it removed the speech and statements because they divulged in state secrets and endangered national security.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Patranobis |first=Sutirtho |date=20 June 2020 |title=India posts PM Modi's remarks on Ladakh face-off, China's WeChat app deletes it |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/chinese-social-media-deletes-modi-s-speech-india-s-statement-on-border-row/story-j53yLW7WpXFpKOHxlrMgVP.html |access-date=20 June 2020 |website=Hindustan Times}}</ref> 

The MEA spokesperson's statement on the incident was also removed from [[Weibo (company)|Weibo]]. Upon seeing that the page said that the content had been deleted by the author, the Indian embassy in China issued a clarification that the post wasn't removed by them, and re-published a screenshot of the statement in Chinese.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |date=20 June 2020 |title=Chinese social media deletes PM Modi, MEA's statements on India-China standoff |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/embassy-officials-say-chinese-media-has-deleted-pm-mea-s-statements-on-india-china-standoff-1691043-2020-06-20 |access-date=10 February 2022 |website=India Today}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Shaurya |first1=Surabhi |date=20 June 2020 |title=Chinese Social Media Sites Including Weibo Delete PM's Speech, MEA's Remarks on Galwan Clash |url=https://www.india.com/news/world/chinese-social-media-sites-including-weibo-delete-pms-speech-meas-remarks-on-galwan-clash-4063629/ |access-date=10 February 2022 |website=India.com}}</ref> On 1 July, Prime Minister Modi quit the Chinese social media platform Weibo.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Krishnan |first1=Ananth |last2=Hebbar |first2=Nistula |date=1 July 2020 |title=China apps ban {{!}} PM Modi quits Weibo |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pm-modi-quits-chinas-weibo-site/article31963578.ece |access-date=2 July 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=1 July 2020 |title=PM Modi quits Chinese app Weibo, message loud and clear, says BJP |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/pm-modi-quits-weibo-chinese-app-6485545/ |website=The Indian Express}}</ref> On 3 July, during a surprise visit to military posts in [[Ladakh]], Prime Minister Modi, said in a speech that the "age of expansionism" is over and history has revealed that "expansionist forces have either lost or were forced to turn back"; the media noted that this was in reference to Beijing.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pasricha |first=Anjana |date=3 July 2020 |title=On Disputed India-China Border, Modi Says Age of Expansionism Over |url=https://www.voanews.com/south-central-asia/disputed-india-china-border-modi-says-age-expansionism-over |access-date=3 July 2020 |website=Voice Of America}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" style="float:right; clear:right; max-width:45em; font-size:85%;"
|+Corps Commanders level talks<br />Timeline
!Year
!Date
!No.
![[Border Personnel Meeting point|BPM]]
!Hrs
!Summary
|-
! rowspan="10" |2020
!6 June
|1
|M
|—
|Following India's request, de-escalation talks begin at BPM point, Moldo<ref name="Som-2020a" />
|-
!15-16 June
! colspan="4" |Galwan skirmish<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Safi |first1=Michael |last2=Ellis-Petersen |first2=Hannah |date=16 June 2020 |title=India says 20 soldiers killed on disputed Himalayan border with China |url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/16/india-says-soldiers-killed-on-disputed-himalayan-border-with-china |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200616084802/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/16/india-says-soldiers-killed-on-disputed-himalayan-border-with-china |archive-date=16 June 2020 |access-date=28 August 2021 |website=The Guardian}}</ref>
|-
!22 June
|2
|M
|11
|Disengagement outline worked upon.<ref name="TheWire-2020" /> Limited localised disengagement follows.<ref name="TheWire-2020" />
|-
!30 June
|3
|C
|12
|No official comments.<ref name="Rajat-2020" /><ref name="Swami-2020" /> Limited localised disengagement continues.<ref name="TheWire-2020" />
|-
!14 July
|4
|C
|12
|Disengagement reviewed, further disengagement discussed.<ref name="TheQuint-2020">{{Cite news |date=13 July 2020 |title='India & China Keen On Complete Disengagement': Army After Talks |work=The Quint |url=https://www.thequint.com/news/indo-china-fourth-round-of-corps-commander-level-talks-on-14-july-report |url-status=live |access-date=28 August 2021}}</ref>
|-
!2 August
|5
|M
|10
|Disengagement talks for Pangong Tso continue, India insists on a return to status quo.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Philip |first=Snehesh Alex |date=3 August 2020 |title=5th round of corps commander talks over, China Study Group likely to meet today for review |work=ThePrint |url=https://theprint.in/defence/5th-round-of-corps-commander-talks-over-china-study-group-likely-to-meet-today-for-review/473510/ |access-date=28 August 2021}}</ref>
|-
!29/30 August
! colspan="4" |India takes control of multiple locations on Kailash Range<ref name="Dhoundial-2021" />
|-
!21 September
|6
|M
|14
|MoE representative, ITBP chief present.<ref name="Philip-2020" /> Post talk joint statement released.<ref name="PDO-2020" />
|-
!13 October
|7
|C
|12
|Post talk joint statement mentions "positive" and "constructive" talks.<ref name="TribuneIndia-2020" />
|-
!6 November
|8
|C
|10
|Chinese side put forward a proposal for de-escalation, disengagement and de-induction.<ref name="SinghM-2020b">{{Cite web |last=Singh |first=Mayank |date=11 November 2020 |title=Proposal from China for systematic de-escalation, disengagement and de-induction |url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/nov/11/proposal-from-china-for-systematic-de-escalation-disengagement-and-de-induction-2222535.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112020028/https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/nov/11/proposal-from-china-for-systematic-de-escalation-disengagement-and-de-induction-2222535.html |archive-date=12 November 2020 |access-date=28 August 2021 |website=The New Indian Express}}</ref>
|-
! rowspan="5" |2021
!24 January
|9
|M
|11
|Post talk joint statement mentions "positive, practical and constructive" talks.<ref name="MEA-9-2021">{{Cite web |date=25 January 2021 |title=Joint Press Release of the 9th Round of India-China Military Commander-Level Meeting |url=https://mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/33414/Joint_Press_Release_of_the_9th_Round_of_IndiaChina_Military_CommanderLevel_Meeting |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126042949/https://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/33414/Joint_Press_Release_of_the_9th_Round_of_IndiaChina_Military_CommanderLevel_Meeting |archive-date=26 January 2021 |access-date=28 August 2021 |website=Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=25 January 2021 |title=Ladakh Standoff: India, China Hold Ninth Round Of Military Talks |work=Outlook India |url=https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-ladakh-standoff-india-china-hold-ninth-round-of-military-talks/371764 |url-status=live |access-date=28 August 2021}}</ref>
|-
!21/22 February
|10
|M
|16
|Pangong Tso frontline disengagement acknowledged.<ref name="MEA-10-2021" /> Disengagement process taken forward.<ref name="News18-2021" />
|-
!9 April
|11
|C
|11
|Talks continue.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Channan |first=Lt Col (Retd) Manoj K |date=12 April 2021 |title=India-China border talks: 11th round of talks remained inconclusive |url=https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/india-china-border-talks-11th-round-of-talks-remained-inconclusive/2231433/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210412150755/https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/india-china-border-talks-11th-round-of-talks-remained-inconclusive/2231433/ |archive-date=12 April 2021 |access-date=28 August 2021 |website=The Financial Express |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=9 April 2021 |title=India-China hold 11th round of military talks over Ladakh disengagement |work=Business Standard India |agency=PTI |url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/india-china-hold-11th-round-of-military-talks-over-ladakh-disengagement-121040900564_1.html |access-date=28 August 2021}}</ref>
|-
!31 July
|12
|M
|9
|Talks continue.<ref name="Negi-2021" />
|-
!10 October
|13
|
|9
|Friction during talks.<ref name="Ghoshal-2021">{{Cite news |last1=Ghoshal |first1=Devjyot |last2=Crossley |first2=Gabriel |date=11 October 2021 |title=India, China trade blame for break down in border talks |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-china-trade-blame-break-down-border-talks-2021-10-11/ |access-date=13 October 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Som |first=Vishnu |date=11 October 2021 |editor-last=Roy |editor-first=Divyanshu Dutta |title=India, China Military Talks Collapse: "Chinese Side Wasn't Agreeable" |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-china-13th-round-military-level-border-talks-collapse-new-delhi-says-chinese-side-wasnt-agreeable-to-constructive-suggestions-2571119 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211011042116/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-china-13th-round-military-level-border-talks-collapse-new-delhi-says-chinese-side-wasnt-agreeable-to-constructive-suggestions-2571119 |archive-date=11 October 2021 |access-date=13 October 2021 |website=NDTV}}</ref> Independent statements.<ref name="Kaushik-2022">{{Cite web |last=Kaushik |first=Krishn |date=14 January 2022 |title=No breakthrough in 14th round of India-China military talks, but two sides agree to 'meet soon' |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-china-release-joint-statement-on-14th-round-of-talks-7721658/ |access-date=4 February 2022 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref>
|-
! rowspan="5" |2022
!12 January
|14
|M
|13
|Joint statement issued. Agree on another talk.<ref name="Kaushik-2022" /><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Bhalla |first1=Abhishek |last2=Negi |first2=Manjeet |date=13 January 2022 |title=Deadlock continues in Ladakh, 14th round of Corps Commander level talks fail to end stalemate |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/deadlock-continues-in-ladakh-14th-round-of-corps-commander-level-talks-fail-to-end-stalemate-1899734-2022-01-13 |access-date=4 February 2022 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref>
|-
!26 January
! colspan="4" |India China celebrate India's Republic Day at Chushul-Moldo and DBO-TWD.<ref>{{Cite web |date=26 January 2022 |others=PTI |title=India, China Armies Hold Meeting To Celebrate Republic Day In Ladakh |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/republic-day-2020-india-china-armies-hold-border-personnel-meeting-in-eastern-ladakh-2170039 |access-date=4 February 2022 |website=NDTV}}</ref>
|-
!11 March
|15
|
|
|<ref>{{Cite web |last=Negi |first=Manjeet |date=12 March 2022 |title=India pushes for resolution in eastern Ladakh in 15th round of talks with China |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-pushes-resolution-friction-points-china-15th-round-corps-commander-talks-1924473-2022-03-12 |access-date=2022-11-22 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref>
|-
!17 July
|16
|
|
|<ref>{{Cite web |last=Philip |first=Snehesh Alex |date=2022-07-18 |title=16th round of India-China talks yield 'no immediate outcome', parleys to continue |url=https://theprint.in/defence/16th-round-of-india-china-talks-yield-no-immediate-outcome-parleys-to-continue/1044605/ |access-date=2022-11-22 |website=ThePrint |language=en-US}}</ref>
|-
!Nov / Dec
|17
|
|
|(planned)<ref>{{Cite web |agency=TNN|date=Nov 13, 2022 |title=Unpredictable situation, no cut in China troops in LAC: Army chief {{!}} India News - Times of India |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/no-reduction-in-strength-of-chinese-troops-at-lac-army-chief-on-eastern-ladakh-standoff/articleshow/95478802.cms |access-date=2022-11-22 |website=The Times of India |language=en}}</ref>
|-
| colspan="6" |{{As of|2022|February|4}}. C = Chushul (Indian side); M = Moldo (Chinese side).
|}
The second round of commanders' meeting was on 22 June. In an 11-hour meeting, the commanders worked out a disengagement outline. On 24 June, this disengagement was then diplomatically acknowledged by both sides during the virtual meeting of the WMCC.<ref name="TheWire-2020" /> Chinese spokesperson, [[Zhao Lijian]] said that India "agreed to and withdrew its cross-border personnel in the Galwan Valley and dismantled the crossing facilities in accordance with China's request".<ref name="TheWire-2020" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=24 June 2020 |title=2020年6月24日外交部发言人赵立坚主持例行记者会 – 中华人民共和国外交部 |trans-title=Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian's Regular Press Conference on June 24, 2020 |url=https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/fyrbt_673021/t1792042.shtml |access-date=25 June 2020 |website=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China}}</ref> 

The third round of commanders' talks were held on 30 June;<ref name="Rajat-2020">{{Cite web |last=Pandit |first=Rajat |date=1 July 2020 |title=India China border dispute: Follow June 22 plan, India tells China |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-china-hold-third-round-of-talks-but-rival-military-build-ups-continue/articleshow/76718609.cms |access-date=1 July 2020 |website=The Times of India}}</ref><ref name="Swami-2020">{{Cite web |last=Swami |first=Praveen |date=1 July 2020 |title=China Agrees Parameters for Galwan Valley Pullback, But No Breakthrough on Pangong in Round 3 of LAC Talks |url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/china-agrees-parameters-for-galwan-valley-pullback-but-no-breakthrough-on-pangong-in-round-3-of-lac-talks-2695523.html |access-date=1 July 2020 |website=News18}}</ref> India reiterated its demand for the pullback of the Chinese troops from all key areas including Pangong Tso, Galwan Valley and the Depsang plains and the restoration of status quo ante in April whereas China emphasised that the military buildup in the region should be reduced.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Singh |first=Rahul |date=6 July 2020 |title=China pulls back troops in Galwan Valley by at least a km: Official |work=The Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/china-pulls-back-troops-in-galwan-valley-by-at-least-a-km-official/story-W6dcjoOSpNTtHv1zZo8b8N.html#:~:text=Six%20days%20after%20top%20Indian,Galwan%20Valley%2C%20people%20familiar%20with |access-date=8 July 2020}}</ref> Following the talks, it was reported that Chinese vehicles were seen withdrawing from the Galwan clash point, as well as from Hot Springs and Gogra.<ref name="AlJazeera-2020">{{Cite news |date=6 July 2020 |title=China 'pulling back troops' after deadly border clash: India |work=Al Jazeera |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/7/6/china-pulling-back-troops-after-deadly-border-clash-india |url-status=live |access-date=8 July 2020}}</ref>

=== Disengagement and de-escalation efforts ===
After earlier unsuccessful attempts at complete disengagement, a discussion scheduled for 5 July, was held between special representatives National Security Advisor of India, [[Ajit Doval]] and Foreign Minister of China, [[Wang Yi (politician)|Wang Yi]], where it was decided that both Indian and Chinese troops would move back 1.8&nbsp;km from the patrolling point PP 14, the 15 June clash site in the Galwan valley.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Tiwary |first1=Deeptiman |last2=Singh |first2=Sushant |last3=Kaushik |first3=Krishn |date=7 July 2020 |title=In Galwan, both sides agree: Troops step back 1.8 km, 30 soldiers each in tents |work=The Indian Express |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-china-galwan-troops-withdraw-6492347/ |access-date=8 July 2020}}</ref> It was reported that both the troops moved back around 1.5 to 2&nbsp;km from the PP 14 to create a buffer zone, which would be off-limits for foot patrolling by them for the next 30 days. Chinese troop fully moved out of the clash site, along with thinning down of troops at Hot Springs and Gogra.<ref name="Peri-2020">{{Cite news |last1=Peri |first1=Dinakari |last2=Singh |first2=Vijaita |date=7 July 2020 |title=After Chinese pullback, Indian troops also move 1.5 km away from Galwan Valley clash site |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/after-chinese-pullback-indian-troops-also-move-15-km-away-from-galwan-valley-clash-site-official/article32009878.ece |access-date=8 July 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Hua |first1=Sha |last2=Roy |first2=Rajesh |date=7 July 2020 |title=China Pulls Back From One Disputed Border, Makes New Claims on Another |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-pulls-back-from-one-disputed-border-makes-new-claims-on-another-11594052370 |access-date=8 July 2020}}</ref> The Chinese troops did not withdraw from the Pangong Tso, where they entered 8&nbsp;km inside Indian patrolling territory.<ref>{{Cite news |date=8 July 2020 |title=Chinese Troops 'Not Withdrawing' From Pangong Tso Lake Area As India-China Look To Disengage |work=The EurAsian Times |url=https://eurasiantimes.com/chinese-troops-not-withdrawing-from-pangong-tso-lake-area-as-india-china-look-to-disengage/ |access-date=8 July 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=8 July 2020 |title=China exits Galwan, Hot Springs next; Pangong Tso likely to remain a sticky point |work=[[Deccan Chronicle]] |url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/080720/china-exits-galwan-hot-springs-next-pangong-tso-likely-to-remain-a-s.html |access-date=8 July 2020}}</ref>

On 25 July, Indian media reported a completion of disengagement at Galwan, Hot Springs and Gogra.<ref name="Aroor-2020">{{Cite web |last1=Aroor |first1=Shiv |last2=Negi |first2=Manjeet Singh |date=25 July 2020 |title=India-China standoff: Disengagement complete at Galwan, Hot Springs, Gogra in Ladakh |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-china-standoff-disengagement-complete-at-hot-springs-in-ladakh-corp-commander-meet-likely-1704425-2020-07-25 |access-date=26 July 2020 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref><ref name="HindustanTimes-2020b">{{Cite web |last=Rai |first=Arpan |date=25 July 2020 |title=India, China complete troop disengagement at three friction points, focus now on Finger area |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-china-complete-troop-disengagement-at-three-friction-points-focus-now-on-finger-area/story-7aDibG5ICTvksF4R2e0RiN.html |access-date=26 July 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |publisher=ANI |language=en}}</ref> On 30 July, shortly after the Chinese Defence Ministry claimed that gradual disengagement and de-escalation was taking place; India told China that the disengagement process is not as yet complete,<ref name="TNN-2020">{{Cite web |date=31 July 2020 |title=Disengagement is incomplete, India tells China |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/disengagement-is-incomplete-india-tells-china/articleshow/77272783.cms |access-date=31 July 2020 |website=The Times of India |language=en}}</ref> with Indian Army sources saying that "there has been no positive movement on the ground for more than two weeks now" and that disengagement at Gogra and Pangong Tso was remaining.<ref name="Kaushik-2020b">{{Cite web |last=Kaushik |first=Krishn |date=31 July 2020 |title=Pangong and Gogra not yet resolved, Army awaits talks |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-china-border-dispute-pangong-gogra-army-6531667/ |access-date=31 July 2020 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref><ref name="HindustanTimes-2020c">{{Cite web |date=30 July 2020 |editor-last=Tripathi |editor-first=Ashutosh |title='Disengagement process along LAC not yet complete': India rebuts China |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/disengagement-process-along-lac-not-yet-complete-india-rebuts-china/story-NpYy0IRVdhMBg11OANuNJJ.html |access-date=31 July 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref> 

On 30 July, the Chinese ambassador [[Sun Weidong]] claimed the process of clarifying the LAC could not continue because unilateral delimitations of the LAC cause more disputes.<ref name="Krishnan-2020b">{{Cite news |last=Krishnan |first=Ananth |date=30 July 2020 |title=Clarifying LAC could create new disputes: Chinese envoy |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/clarifying-lac-could-create-new-disputes-chinese-envoy/article32232724.ece |access-date=1 August 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref> The fourth round of corps-commander talks took place on 14 July,<ref name="TheQuint-2020" /> while the fifth round of talks were on 2 August.<ref name="Kaushik-2020e">{{Cite web |last=Kaushik |first=Krishn |date=3 August 2020 |title=Fifth round of talks held amid stalemate in Pangong Tso |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-china-border-dispute-pangong-tso-talks-6536443/ |access-date=5 August 2020 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref> On 24 July diplomatic talks were held between the two countries with regard to disengagement.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2 August 2020 |title=Military commanders of India and China hold fifth round of talks on border row |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/military-commanders-of-india-and-china-hold-fifth-round-of-talks-on-border-row/articleshow/77313558.cms |access-date=5 August 2020 |website=The Times of India |language=en}}</ref> Following the fifth round of talks, the [[China Study Group]] convened and found China's "mutual and equal" disengagement proposal at Pangong Tso unacceptable.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Singh |first1=Sushant |last2=Kaushik |first2=Krishn |date=6 August 2020 |title=India to China: Proposal to step back further is untenable, not acceptable |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-to-china-proposal-to-step-back-further-is-untenable-not-acceptable-6541551/ |access-date=6 August 2020 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Banerjee |first=Ajay |date=5 August 2020 |title=India snubs China, says won't pull back from Pangong Tso |url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/india-snubs-china-says-wont-pull-back-from-pangong-tso-122756 |access-date=6 August 2020 |website=Tribune India |language=en}}</ref> 

On day 100 of the border tensions [[The Week (Indian magazine)|''The Week'']] reported a statement from a defence official based in the [[Secretariat Building, New Delhi|Secretariat Building]] in New Delhi, "Indian military planners believe that things seem to be out of their control. Now, only a political intervention can resolve the issue. Military side has done enough with repeated marathon discussions."<ref name="Sagar-2020b">{{Cite web |last=Sagar |first=Pradip R |date=13 August 2020 |title=100 days on, India-China border in Ladakh still remains tense |url=https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2020/08/13/100-days-on--india-china-border-in-ladakh-still-remains-tense.html |access-date=30 August 2020 |website=The Week |language=en}}</ref> On 27 August, former [[Foreign Secretary of India]], [[Shyam Saran]] said "India needs to be patient{{nbsp}}... citing the example of [[1987 Sino-Indian skirmish|Somdorong Chu in 1987]] which took seven years to resolve".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Thapar |first=Karan |author-link=Karan Thapar |date=27 August 2020 |title='Continuing Chinese Intrusion Worrying, Modi's Response Took Pressure Off Beijing': Shyam Saran |url=https://thewire.in/security/watch-karan-thapar-interview-shyam-saran-china-modi-ladakh |access-date=30 August 2020 |website=The Wire}}</ref> 

[[File:Defence minister talk during 2020 standoff between India and China.jpg|thumb|350x350px|China and India hold talks on 4 September 2020. Visible are the Defence Ministers from both countries, Rajnath Singh and General Wei Fenghe.]]
Chinese General [[Wei Fenghe]] and his Indian counterpart [[Rajnath Singh]] held a talk, on 4 September in Moscow, on the sidelines of a [[Shanghai Cooperation Organisation]] (SCO) meeting.<ref name="HindustanTimes-2020d">{{Cite news |last=Sarkar |first=Shankhyaneel |date=5 September 2020 |title=At SCO meet, Rajnath Singh tells China to restore status quo at LAC |language=en |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/at-sco-meet-rajnath-singh-tells-china-to-restore-status-quo-at-lac/story-ylvhTnX21W0A9A8nEsFRRK.html |access-date=5 September 2020}}</ref> On 10 September, the foreign affairs ministers of China and India met in Moscow. Five points were agreed upon in a joint statement, including new CBMs between the two countries.<ref>{{Cite web |date=10 September 2020 |title=Joint Press Statement – Meeting of External Affairs Minister and the Foreign Minister of China |url=https://mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/32962/Joint_Press_Statement__Meeting_of_External_Affairs_Minister_and_the_Foreign_Minister_of_China_September_10_2020 |access-date=11 September 2020 |website=Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India}}</ref> 

On 21 September, the sixth commander-level meeting took place at Chushul-Moldo BPM.<ref name="BusinessStandard-2020">{{Cite news |date=30 September 2020 |title=India, China evaluate outcome of 6th round of commanders talks: MEA |work=[[Business Standard]] |url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/india-china-evaluate-outcome-of-6th-round-of-commanders-talks-mea-120093001593_1.html |access-date=6 October 2020}}</ref> The Indian delegation consisted of Lt Gen Harinder Singh, Lt Gen P G K  Menon, two major generals, four brigadiers and other officers, the chief of the [[Indo-Tibetan Border Police]] and for the first time, a Ministry of External Affairs representative.<ref name="Philip-2020">{{Cite web |last1=Philip |first1=Snehesh Alex |last2=Basu |first2=Nayanima |date=22 September 2020 |title=India and China stick to demands, current ground positions in Ladakh could become status quo |url=https://theprint.in/defence/india-and-china-stick-to-demands-current-ground-positions-in-ladakh-could-become-status-quo/508449/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200923020024/https://theprint.in/defence/india-and-china-stick-to-demands-current-ground-positions-in-ladakh-could-become-status-quo/508449/ |archive-date=23 September 2020 |access-date=24 September 2020 |website=ThePrint}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last= |date=21 September 2020 |title=India, China to hold sixth Corps Commander-level talks today: Report |work=Business Standard India |url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/india-china-to-hold-sixth-corps-commander-level-talks-today-report-120092100190_1.html |access-date=22 September 2020}}</ref> Following the 14-hour talks, a joint statement was released, which included both sides having agreed to "stop sending more troops to the frontline".<ref name="PDO-2020">{{Cite web |date=23 September 2020 |title=China, India hold sixth round of commander-level talks |url=http://en.people.cn/n3/2020/0923/c90000-9763522.html |access-date=24 September 2020 |website=People's Daily Online (en.people.cn)}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Peri |first=Dinakar |date=22 September 2020 |title=Ladakh standoff {{!}} India, China agree to stop sending more troops to frontline |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ladakh-standoff-new-army-talks-positive-but-no-breakthrough-on-de-escalation/article32667313.ece |access-date=24 September 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref> On 30 September, the fifth round of diplomatic talks took place; this was the 19th meeting of the WMCC.<ref>{{Cite news |date=1 October 2020 |title=No breakthrough on stand-off in 5th round of India-China talks |work=The Times of India |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/no-breakthrough-on-stand-off-in-5th-round-of-india-china-talks/articleshow/78417198.cms |access-date=1 October 2020}}</ref> 

On 13 October, the seventh round of military commanders talks in Chushul took place; while the talks were called positive, on ground issues and tensions remain.<ref name="TribuneIndia-2020">{{Cite web |date=13 October 2020 |title=Seventh round of India-China military talks 'positive and constructive': Joint statement |url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/seventh-round-of-india-china-military-talks-positive-and-constructive-joint-statement-155191 |access-date=13 October 2020 |website=Tribune India |language=en}}</ref> On 15 October, Jaishankar said that the talks between India and China to resolve the standoff are "confidential" and shouldn't be "prejudged".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Ghosh |first=Poulomi |date=15 October 2020 |title=India, China engaged in 'confidential' talks to resolve border standoff, says Jaishankar |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-china-engaged-in-confidential-talks-to-resolve-border-standoff-says-jaishankar/story-ZvIxiCYQsEbIfTR3vvQEAI.html |access-date=17 October 2020}}</ref> During the eighth round of corps-commander-level talks on 6 November the Chinese side put forward a proposal for de-escalation, disengagement and de-induction.<ref name="SinghM-2020b" /><ref name="Bali-2020">{{Cite web |last=Bali |first=Pawan |date=6 November 2020 |title=Ladakh standoff: India, China armies hold 8th round of commander-level talks |url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/061120/ladakh-standoff-india-china-armies-hold-8th-round-of-commander-level.html |access-date=21 November 2020 |website=Deccan Chronicle |language=en}}</ref> The ninth round of talks were in January 2021,<ref name="Xinhua-2021">{{Cite web |date=26 January 2021 |title=China, India hold 9th round of corps commander level meeting |url=http://www.china.org.cn/world/2021-01/26/content_77156224.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126083652/http://www.china.org.cn/world/2021-01/26/content_77156224.htm |archive-date=26 January 2021 |access-date=28 January 2021 |website=www.china.org.cn |publisher=Xinhua}}</ref><ref name="MEA-9-2021" /> the tenth in February 2021,<ref name="News18-2021">{{Cite web |date=21 February 2021 |title=In 10th Round of Military Talks, India-China Discuss Disengagement at Depsang, Hot Springs for 16 Hours |url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/in-10th-round-of-military-level-talks-india-china-talk-disengagement-at-depsang-hot-springs-for-16-hours-3457622.html |access-date=8 March 2021 |website=News18 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="MEA-10-2021">{{Cite web |date=21 February 2021 |title=Joint Press Release of the 10th Round of China-India Corps Commander Level Meeting |url=https://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/33557/Joint+Press+Release+of+the+10th+Round+of+ChinaIndia+Corps+Commander+Level+Meeting |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210225083527/https://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/33557/Joint+Press+Release+of+the+10th+Round+of+ChinaIndia+Corps+Commander+Level+Meeting |archive-date=25 February 2021 |access-date=16 June 2021 |website=www.mea.gov.in |publisher=Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India}}</ref> and the eleventh in April 2021.<ref>{{Cite web |date=10 April 2021 |title=11th Round of India-China Corps Commander Level Meeting |url=https://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/33792/11th_Round_of_IndiaChina_Corps_Commander_Level_Meeting |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210410183907/https://mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/33792/11th_Round_of_IndiaChina_Corps_Commander_Level_Meeting |archive-date=10 April 2021 |access-date=16 June 2021 |website=www.mea.gov.in |publisher=Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India}}</ref> In February 2021, disengagement from Pangong Tso was reported.<ref name="usnews.com">[https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-02-11/india-china-begin-troop-withdrawal-from-contested-border India, China Begin Troop Withdrawal From Contested Border], US News & World Report, 11 February 2021.</ref> On 1 August 2021 a new military hotline was set up.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pandit |first=Rajat |date=1 August 2021 |title=India, China establish sixth hotline between ground commanders along LAC |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-china-establish-sixth-hotline-between-ground-commanders-along-lac/articleshow/84947628.cms |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210801145524/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-china-establish-sixth-hotline-between-ground-commanders-along-lac/articleshow/84947628.cms |archive-date=1 August 2021 |access-date=28 August 2021 |website=The Times of India}}</ref>

=== Linkage of border tension and bilateral relations ===
In an interview on 2 August 2020, the Indian External Affairs Minister said to the ''Times of India'', "the state of the border and the future of our ties cannot be separated".<ref>{{Cite news |date=5 August 2020 |title=Keep border dispute & bilateral ties separate, China tells India |work=The Times of India |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/keep-border-dispute-bilateral-ties-separate-china-tells-india/articleshow/77362414.cms |access-date=16 September 2020}}</ref> On 4 August, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said that the two countries should "make sure differences do not escalate into disputes" and that China hopes India will work with them in maintaining the "overall interests of bilateral relations."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Patranobis |first=Sutirtho |date=4 August 2020 |title='Make sure differences do not escalate into disputes': China to India on border row |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/make-sure-differences-do-not-escalate-into-disputes-china-to-india-on-border-row/story-wiDbDdWpaKzppsFeAbYUiI.html |access-date=16 September 2020}}</ref> On 26 August, Chinese Ambassador Weidong said that China hoped India would not mix the functioning of [[Confucius Institute]]s<ref>{{Cite web |date=6 August 2020 |title='Cultural exchange' or propaganda?: Centre reviews China's Confucius Institutes amid global concern |url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/cultural-exchange-or-propaganda-centre-reviews-chinas-confucius-institutes-amid-global-concern-8676241.html |access-date=26 August 2020 |website=Firstpost}}</ref> with the border tensions — but a "brief moment" in history. However India maintained that the border tensions and normal relations between the two countries are linked.<ref>{{Cite web |date=26 August 2020 |title=Galwan clash a 'brief moment' in history: Chinese envoy |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/galwan-clash-a-brief-moment-in-history-chinese-envoy/articleshow/77754682.cms |access-date=26 August 2020 |website=The Times of India |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Gupta |first=Shishir |date=15 August 2020 |title=India's review of China's Confucius Institutes to focus on Kolkata, Mumbai centres |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-s-review-of-confucius-institutes-to-focus-on-kolkata-mumbai-centres/story-rDbgkQDs0cXbHVf2QtvkOI.html |access-date=26 August 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref> [[European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS)]] states that while China has tried to delink the border issue and other bilateral relations, "India has now been bitten enough times to realize the futility, even counter-productivity, of dealing with the border issue in isolation."<ref name="EuropeanFoundationforSouthAsianStudies(EFSAS)-2020">{{Cite web |date=7 August 2020 |title=The stalemate on the India-China border and the wooing of India by the United States |url=https://www.efsas.org/commentaries/the-stalemate-on-the-india-china-border/ |access-date=16 September 2020 |website=European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS) |language=en}}</ref>

=== India's statements about transgressions, incursions, intrusions and infiltration ===
On 19 June 2020, during the all-party meet, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was translated as saying, "No one has entered Indian territory or captured any military post".<ref name="hindustantimes_0619" /><ref name="infiltration" /> In the Upper House of the Indian Parliament, on 16 September 2020, the Minister of State for Home Affairs, in response to a question from a BJP MP about infiltrations, said in a written reply that "since February there had been 47 cases of attempted infiltration along the India-Pakistan border" and  "no infiltration has been reported along India-China border during the last six months."<ref>{{Cite news |date=16 September 2020 |title=No infiltration reported along India-China border in last 6 months, MoS Nityanand Rai informs Rajya Sabha |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/no-infiltration-reported-along-india-china-border-in-last-6-months-mos-nityanand-rai-informs-rajya-sabha/article32618903.ece |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=16 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200917022031/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/no-infiltration-reported-along-india-china-border-in-last-6-months-mos-nityanand-rai-informs-rajya-sabha/article32618903.ece |archive-date=17 September 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=16 September 2020 |title='No infiltration reported along Indo-China border during last six months': MHA in Rajya Sabha |work=Hindustan Times |editor-last=Rai |editor-first=Arpan |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/no-infiltration-reported-along-indo-china-border-during-last-six-months-mha-in-rajya-sabha/story-8s9M8qetLO7L1HJ1ejqR7K.html |access-date=16 September 2020}}</ref> On 15 September 2020, in the Parliament of India, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said "China made transgression attempts on Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the western sector. This includes the Kongka Pass, Gogra, and the north bank of Pangong Lake."<ref>{{Cite news |date=15 September 2020 |title=China disrupted traditional patrolling pattern of Indian troops in Galwan Valley causing face-off conditions |work=ANI |url=https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/china-disrupted-traditional-patrolling-pattern-of-indian-troops-in-galwan-valley-causing-face-off-conditions-rajnath20200915162437/ |access-date=16 September 2020}}</ref>

=== Official statements on territorial sovereignty ===
On 29 September 2020, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that China does not recognize the "illegal" Union Territory of Ladakh.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Chaudhury |first=Dipanjan Roy |date=30 September 2020 |title=China provokes India on Ladakh; Delhi says no to unilaterally defined LAC |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/china-calls-ladakhs-status-as-a-union-territory-an-illegal-move-objects-border-activities/articleshow/78385064.cms?from=mdr |access-date=20 October 2020}}</ref> In other diplomatic statements, on 8 September and then again on 13 October,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Guha |first=Seema |date=13 October 2020 |title=China Again Claims It Does Not Recognise Ladakh, Arunachal |url=https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-china-again-claims-it-does-not-recognise-ladakh-arunachal/362135 |access-date=21 October 2020}}</ref> China repeated that they have never recognized the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh.<ref>{{Cite web |date=8 September 2020 |title='Never recognised so-called Arunachal Pradesh', says China: A look at Beijing's past efforts to lay claim over state |url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/never-recognised-so-called-arunachal-pradesh-says-china-a-look-at-beijings-past-efforts-to-lay-claim-over-state-8795901.html |access-date=21 October 2020 |website=Firstpost}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Khaliq |first=Riyaz ul |date=7 September 2020 |title=Arunachal Pradesh not part of India: China |work=Anadolu Agency |url=https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/arunachal-pradesh-not-part-of-india-china/1965735 |access-date=20 October 2020}}</ref> China has routinely objected to Indian leaders visiting Arunachal Pradesh over the years.<ref>{{Cite news |date=9 February 2019 |title=China 'firmly opposes' Modi's Arunachal visit |work=The Economic Times |agency=PTI |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/modis-arunachal-pradesh-visit-would-aggravate-border-dispute-china/articleshow/67914364.cms?from=mdr |access-date=20 October 2020}}</ref> Before the [[National Day of the Republic of China|national day of Taiwan]] on 10 October 2020, Chinese embassy in New Delhi issued guidelines for the Indian media over coverage of the national day.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Laskar |first=Rezaul H |date=7 October 2020 |title=China's dos and don'ts for Indian media ahead of Taiwan national day |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/china-s-dos-and-don-ts-for-indian-media-ahead-of-taiwan-national-day/story-iTl985M10GxoxOtumee7cI.html |access-date=20 October 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref> 

On 15 October India told China not to comment on India's internal matters, referring to China's repeated insistence on commenting upon its infrastructure as being the cause for border tensions.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gupta |first=Shishir |date=15 October 2020 |title=In rebuttal to China claim over Ladakh, Arunachal, India drops a clear warning |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-rebuts-china-on-claim-over-arunachal-ladakh-with-a-clear-warning/story-KmvC0fDvM0zYv63NJmvI6M.html |access-date=20 October 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref> At a political as well as an individual level, statements and actions related to the territorial sovereignty of Tibet, Gilgit, Baltistan, Aksai Chin and Shaksgam Valley have also been made.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Ganai |first=Naseer |date=18 October 2020 |title=Time To Liberate Aksai Chin, Gilgit Baltistan, Says Kashmir BJP Chief |work=Outlook India |url=https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-time-to-liberate-aksai-chin-gilgit-baltistan-says-kashmir-bjp-chief/362470 |access-date=21 October 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=26 July 2020 |title=Traders' body CAIT releases rakhis with message Aksai Chin and PoK belong to India |work=Economic Times |agency=PTI |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/traders-body-cait-releases-rakhis-with-message-aksai-chin-and-pok-belong-to-india/articleshow/77183933.cms?from=mdr |access-date=21 October 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Sibal |first=Kanwal |author-link=Kanwal Sibal |date=5 October 2020 |title=View: China's arrogant rejection of new map of Ladakh an affront |work=Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/view-chinas-arrogant-rejection-of-new-map-of-ladakh-an-affront/articleshow/78484687.cms |access-date=21 October 2020}}</ref> With regard to a new Chinese village near [[Longju]] in disputed territory Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson stated in January 2021 "...{{nbsp}}China's normal construction on its own territory is entirely a matter of sovereignty".<ref name="Patranobis-2021" />

== Status of standoff and skirmishes ==
{| class="wikitable"
|+Status along the LAC in Western Ladakh
! rowspan="2" |Location
! colspan="3" |De-escalation ladder<ref name="Unnithan-2021">{{Cite web |last=Unnithan |first=Sandeep |date=20 February 2021 |title=Pangong retreat: Detente at the roof of the world |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/the-big-story/story/20210301-detente-at-the-roof-of-the-world-1770785-2021-02-20 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210220065240/https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/the-big-story/story/20210301-detente-at-the-roof-of-the-world-1770785-2021-02-20 |archive-date=20 February 2021 |access-date=12 June 2021 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Ahuja |first=Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Anil |date=19 October 2020 |title=Lessons from Ladakh and the Way Forward |url=https://www.delhipolicygroup.org/publication/policy-briefs/lessons-from-ladakh-and-the-way-forward.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201204105435/https://www.delhipolicygroup.org/publication/policy-briefs/lessons-from-ladakh-and-the-way-forward.html |archive-date=4 December 2020 |access-date=24 August 2021 |website=Delhi Policy Group}}</ref><ref name="SinghM-2020b" />
! rowspan="2" |Delienation & Demarcation
|-
!Disengagement
!De-escalation
!De-induction
De-militarisation
|-
|'''Ladakh'''
|Underway<ref name="Unnithan-2021" />
| -
| -
| -
|-
|'''Pangong Tso'''
|Frontline troops disengagement complete on 21 February 2021<ref name="MEA-10-2021" /><br />Complete disengagement in March 2021<ref name="Bhalla-2021" />
| -
| -
|NA
|-
|'''Galwan'''
|Limited localised disengagement in June–July 2020<ref name="HindustanTimes-2020b" /><ref name="Bhalla-2021" />
| -
| -
|NA
|-
|'''Hot Springs'''
|Limited disengagement complete at ''some'' locations starting June–July 2020<ref name="HindustanTimes-2020b" /><ref name="Bhalla-2021" /><ref name="Kaushik-2020e" />
| -
| -
|NA
|-
|'''Gogra'''
|Disengagement extends into August 2021<ref name="Express-2021">{{Cite web |date=6 August 2021 |title=India, China disengage from Gogra Post in eastern Ladakh after 12th round of talks |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-china-ladakh-army-gogra-7441734/ |access-date=24 August 2021 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref>
| -
| -
|NA
|}

=== Pangong Tso ===
Complete disengagement from Pangong Lake north and south bank took place in February 2021.<ref name="HindustanTimes-2020b" /><ref name="Bhalla-2021" /> Part of the disengagement deal at Pangong Lake was the withdrawal of Indian troops from positions they had taken control of 29 and 30 August in the [[Chushul sector]] and Kailash Range overlooking Chinese fixtures at [[Spanggur Gap]] and [[Spanggur Tso]].<ref name="Dhoundial-2021">{{Cite web |last=Dhoundial |first=Shreya |date=17 February 2021 |title=India's Move to Occupy Kailash Range Became Turning Point in Disengagement Talks: Lt Gen YK Joshi |url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-move-to-occupy-kailash-range-became-turning-point-in-disengagement-talks-lt-gen-yk-joshi-3445079.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210217162456/https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-move-to-occupy-kailash-range-became-turning-point-in-disengagement-talks-lt-gen-yk-joshi-3445079.html |archive-date=17 February 2021 |access-date=28 August 2021 |website=News18}}</ref><ref name="IT-31" /><ref name="SCMP-31" /><ref name="Dutta-2020" />

=== Gogra-Hot Springs ===
India reported a change in status quo in early May 2020.<ref name="Mitra-2021">{{Cite web |last=Mitra |first=Devirupa |date=5 June 2021 |title=Ahead of Border Talks With China, India Still Unclear of Reason Behind Troops Stand-Off |url=https://thewire.in/external-affairs/exclusive-india-china-ladakh-border-dialogue |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200606082915/https://thewire.in/external-affairs/exclusive-india-china-ladakh-border-dialogue |archive-date=6 June 2020 |access-date=2 August 2021 |website=The Wire}}</ref> From May into early June, disengagement efforts at areas including Gogra and Hot Springs was underway.<ref name="Mitra-2021" /> On 9 June 2020, PLA moved back 2&nbsp;km at Hot Springs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bali |first=Pawan |date=9 June 2020 |title=China, India pull back at three points in Ladakh |url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/politics/090620/china-india-pull-back-at-three-points-in-ladakh.html |access-date=2 August 2021 |website=Deccan Chronicle |language=en}}</ref> However further de-escalation did not continue following skirmishes in other areas, including the 15/16 June skirmish which caused tensions.<ref name="Pandit-2020c">{{Cite web |last=Pandit |first=Rajat |date=24 June 2020 |title=India China border issue news: India, China agree on gradual, 'verifiable disengagement' |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-china-agree-on-gradual-verifiable-disengagement/articleshow/76535753.cms |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200624090233/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-china-agree-on-gradual-verifiable-disengagement/articleshow/76535753.cms |archive-date=24 June 2020 |access-date=2 August 2021 |website=The Times of India |language=en}}</ref> On 24 June 2020, disengagement in general was again agreed upon.<ref name="Pandit-2020c" /> Through early July 2020, disengagement was underway,<ref name="AlJazeera-2020" /><ref name="Peri-2020" /> and on 25 July 2020, ''[[India Today]]'' and [[Asian News International|ANI]] wrote of the completion of disengagement at locations in Hot Springs and Gogra.<ref name="Aroor-2020" /><ref name="HindustanTimes-2020b" /> In February 2021, ''[[India Today]]'', as per sources and officials, disengagement at other locations of Hot Springs and Gogra was yet to be discussed.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bhalla |first=Abhishek |date=11 February 2021 |title=Ladakh standoff: After Pangong, focus on other areas for disengagement |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ladakh-standoff-after-pangong-focus-on-other-areas-for-disengagement-1768339-2021-02-11 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210211152250/https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ladakh-standoff-after-pangong-focus-on-other-areas-for-disengagement-1768339-2021-02-11 |archive-date=11 February 2021 |access-date=2 August 2021 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Bhalla-2021" /> 

Following the twelfth military commanders talks, disengagement at Gogra post ([[Patrol Point|PP]] 17A) took place on 4 and 5 August 2021.<ref name="Express-2021" /><ref name="Negi-2021">{{Cite web |last=Negi |first=Manjeet |date=31 July 2021 |title=Ladakh standoff: India, China end 12th Corps Commander-level talks after 9 hours |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ladakh-conflict-india-china-end-12th-corps-commander-level-talks-1835201-2021-07-31 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210731150533/https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ladakh-conflict-india-china-end-12th-corps-commander-level-talks-1835201-2021-07-31 |archive-date=31 July 2021 |access-date=2 August 2021 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref> Indian analysts have postulated that the buffer zone created at PP 17A has resulted in the LAC shifting westwards.<ref name="SinghS-2021g">{{Cite web |last=Singh |first=Sushant |date=11 August 2021 |title=Gogra Disengagement Raises More Questions About the Situation in Ladakh |url=https://thewire.in/security/gogra-disengagement-raises-more-questions-about-the-situation-in-ladakh |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210811111933/https://thewire.in/security/gogra-disengagement-raises-more-questions-about-the-situation-in-ladakh |archive-date=11 August 2021 |access-date=24 August 2021 |website=The Wire}}</ref><ref name="Panag-2021">{{Cite news |last=Panag |first=Harcharanjit Singh |author-link=H. S. Panag |date=12 August 2021 |title=Modi government's politics with China is evolving. Gogra disengagement is proof |work=The Print |url=https://theprint.in/opinion/modi-governments-politics-with-china-is-evolving-gogra-disengagement-is-proof/713201/ |access-date=24 August 2021}}</ref> While the joint statement stated that "All temporary structures and other allied infrastructure created in the area by both sides have been dismantled and mutually verified", analysts pointed out that Chinese structures are still visible through satellite imagery.<ref>{{Cite web |date=6 August 2021 |title=PRESS RELEASE :DISENGAGEMENT AT PP 17A |url=http://www.pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1743220 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210824091651/https://pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1743220 |archive-date=24 August 2021 |access-date=24 August 2021 |website=www.pib.gov.in |publisher=Ministry of Defence}}</ref>

==India's territorial loss==
After the partial disengagement by both sides following the ministry-level discussion in July 2020, several Indian defence analysts pointed out the agreement is a failure of ''[[status quo ante bellum]]'' that existed until April 2020 and that return to status quo was unlikely.<ref name="HTDisengage">{{Cite news |last=Chellaney |first=Brahma |date=9 July 2020 |title=China may win, without fighting |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/china-may-win-without-fighting/story-4M3g3EhhwmYlxKRMxc7GUN.html |access-date=9 July 2020}}</ref> Furthermore, Indian sources have pointed out that the Chinese reluctance of disengagement from the bottleneck 'Y' junction in Depsang plains and finger 4 of Pangong Tso where Chinese forces further advanced inside of Indian claimed territory and constructed military establishments is an impediment to returning to the ''status quo ante''.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Singh |first=Rahul |date=8 July 2020 |title=China's pullback in Ladakh's Pangong Finger Area to test disengagement |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/china-s-pullback-in-ladakh-s-pangong-finger-areas-to-test-disengagement/story-oRUELqABgocgUMbLkbPWFM.html |access-date=9 July 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Bhalla |first=Abhishek |date=8 July 2020 |title=Pangong Tso likely to remain a sticky point even as Chinese troops withdraw from Galwan, Hot Springs |work=India Today |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pangong-tso-likely-to-remain-a-sticky-point-even-as-chinese-troops-withdraw-from-galwan-hot-springs-1698424-2020-07-08 |access-date=9 July 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=8 July 2020 |title=No pullback of Chinese troops, material from Pangong Lake, Depsang |work=Greater Kashmir |agency=IANS |url=https://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/national-2/no-pullback-of-chinese-troops-material-from-pangong-lake-depsang/ |access-date=9 July 2020}}</ref>

As part of the disengagement process, buffer zones have largely been established inside Indian areas.<ref name="India territory loss TOI">{{cite news |last1=Pandit |first1=Rajat |last2= |first2= |title=India, China disengage troops at PP-15 but final verification awaited {{!}} India News - Times of India |language=en |work=The Times of India |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pp-15-pullback-complete-final-verification-awaited/articleshow/94162717.cms |access-date=9 October 2022}}</ref> In the buffer zone on the north bank of [[Pangong Tso]], for instance, Indian troops can no longer patrol an around 10-km stretch from 'Finger-2' to 'Finger-8' now, though Indian maps show the [[Line of Actual Control]] at 'Finger-8'.<ref name="India territory loss TOI" /> A councilor of the [[Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Leh|LAHDC]] in [[Ladakh]] said that Indian territory has been turned into a "buffer zone" after Indian and Chinese troops completed disengagement from [[Gogra]]-[[Hot Springs, Chang Chenmo Valley|Hot Springs]] in eastern Ladakh. He said "Our troops have gone back from not only PP-15 but also PP-16, which we had for the last 50 years or so. (...) Our grazing grounds have now become a buffer zone".<ref name=ndtv-grazing-grounds-gone>{{cite news |title=Video {{!}} "Territory Gone, Grazing Ground Now Buffer Zone": Ladakh Leader On Troops Pull-Back |url=https://www.ndtv.com/video/news/news/territory-gone-grazing-ground-now-buffer-zone-ladakh-leader-on-troops-pull-back-654277 |access-date=9 October 2022}}</ref><ref name="Hindu India land buffer zones">{{cite news |last1=Singh |first1=Vijaita |title=Grazing lands turning into buffer zones, says chief of village bordering LAC |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/grazing-lands-turning-into-buffer-zones-says-chief-of-village-bordering-lac/article65914105.ece |access-date=22 November 2022 |work=The Hindu |date=20 September 2022 |language=en-IN}}</ref> He said that India's Krugang Valley could become a disputed area.<ref name="India territory loss DH">{{cite news |last1=Bhaumik |first1=Anirban |last2=Ray |first2=Kalyan |date=14 September 2022 |title=LAC pullback ends amid buzz that India lost ground |language=en |work=Deccan Herald |url=https://www.deccanherald.com/national/lac-pullback-ends-amid-buzz-that-india-lost-ground-1144880.html |access-date=9 October 2022}}</ref> Former [[Rajya Sabha]] MP from the [[BJP]], [[Subramaniam Swamy]] said in a tweet that India had withdrawn from its own territory.<ref name="India territory loss DH" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Subramaniam Swamy's Twitter post |url=https://twitter.com/Swamy39/status/1569504498128928771 |website=Twitter |access-date=9 October 2022 |language=en}}</ref> Indian military veterans said that the buffer zones represent a “new status quo” and that the creation of these zones amounted to “ceding further Indian territory” to the Chinese.<ref name="India territory loss TG">{{cite news |last=Siddiqui |first=Imran Ahmed |date=2021-11-06 |title=LAC: Veterans worry over govt's continued silence on 'buffer zones' |work=www.telegraphindia.com |url=https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/ladakh-veterans-concerned-over-centres-continued-silence-on-buffer-zones/cid/1837493 |access-date=9 October 2022}}</ref> Colonel [[Ajai Shukla]] said that in all the disengagements since April 2020 the buffer zones that have come into existence are entirely on territory both claimed and previously patrolled by India but now, as a result, India is denied the right to patrol up to where it previously could. On the other hand, China’s buffer zones are not on territory claimed and previously patrolled by China and, therefore, China can continue to patrol up to the point where it previously did.<ref name="India territory loss Wire">{{cite news |title=Watch {{!}} 'Modi Govt Hasn't Told Us Full Truth About Disengagement With China': Ajai Shukla |url=https://thewire.in/security/karan-thapar-ajai-shukla-disengagement-china-india |access-date=9 October 2022 |work=The Wire}}</ref> He gave the example of Gogra, where the Chinese intruded 4&nbsp;km into Indian territory and pulled back 2&nbsp;km while the other 2&nbsp;km have become a buffer zone. Therefore, this buffer zone is entirely on Indian claimed territory.<ref name="India territory loss Wire" /> Col. Shukla and other Indian veterans strongly criticised the Indian Prime Minister’s statement of June 2020 when Narendra Modi said that there are no Chinese on Indian territory and never have been. This was an endorsement of the position of the Chinese government, and allowed Beijing to dismiss the allegations of border transgressions and claim ownership of all the positions it held.<ref name="India territory loss TG" /><ref name="India territory loss Wire" /> In 2020, India had rejected the proposal of equidistant disengagement as it would mean "loss of territory for its own side",<ref>{{cite news |last=Negi |first=Manjeet |date=August 23, 2020 |title=India rejects Chinese demand for equidistant disengagement in Pangong Tso lake area |language=en |work=India Today |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-rejects-chinese-demand-for-equidistant-disengagement-in-pangong-tso-lake-area-1714259-2020-08-23 |access-date=10 October 2022}}</ref> but ended up agreeing to the same proposal in 2022. Experts had warned in advance that a 'mutual pullback agreement' would result in further loss of territory for India, a buffer zone entirely in Indian territory.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Shukla |first=Ajai |date=7 July 2020 |title=Signs of thaw at Galwan Valley after NSA Ajit Doval, Wang Yi talk |work=[[Business Standard]] |url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/signs-of-thaw-at-galwan-valley-after-nsa-ajit-doval-wang-yi-talk-120070601674_1.html |access-date=9 July 2020}}</ref>

As of 2023, about 2,000 sq km of Indian land has been ceded to China since June 2020.<ref name="Siddiqui">{{cite web | last=Siddiqui | first=Imran Ahmed | title='Subjugation and surrender': Military veterans slam Modi government's continuing silence on Galwan | website=Telegraph India | date=2023-06-16 | url=https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/subjugation-and-surrender-military-veterans-slam-modi-governments-continuing-silence-on-galwan/cid/1945450}}</ref> Modi has been criticized for maintaining silence over the territorial loss.<ref name="guardian2">{{cite web |last=Hassan |first=Aakash |title=Indian government accused of ceding land in Himalayas to China |website=the Guardian |date=2022-09-19 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/19/indian-people-living-near-border-accuse-government-of-ceding-land-to-china}}</ref><ref name="BrahmaChellaney">{{cite web |last=Chellaney |first=Brahma |title=Modi's silence on China's land grabs will not be India's last word - Nikkei Asia |website=Nikkei Asia |date=2022-12-19 |url=https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Modi-s-silence-on-China-s-land-grabs-will-not-be-India-s-last-word |access-date=2023-07-09}}</ref>

In January 2023 an official Indian research paper stated that India had lost access to 26 out of 65 Patrolling Points in eastern Ladakh since June 2020.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Peri |first1=Vijaita Singh & Dinakar |title=India has lost access to 26 out of 65 Patrolling Points in eastern Ladakh, says research paper |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-has-lost-access-to-26-out-of-65-patrolling-points-in-eastern-ladakh-says-research-paper/article66428193.ece |access-date=26 March 2023 |work=The Hindu |date=24 January 2023 |language=en-IN}}</ref>

== Reactions ==
=== India ===
Following the Galwan clash, Chinese flags and effigies of paramount leader Xi Jinping were burned in various places across India and various groups registered their protests in different ways.<ref>{{cite web |date=17 June 2020 |editor-last=Srinivasan |editor-first=Chandrashekar |title=Anti-China Protests Across India, Delhi's Defence Colony Declares "War" |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-china-face-off-ladakh-after-ladakh-anti-china-protests-and-calls-to-boycott-goods-across-india-2247910 |access-date=18 June 2020 |website=NDTV.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=18 June 2020 |title=UP: Anti-China protests across Gorakhpur-Basti zone, Chinese president's effigy burnt |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/anti-china-protest-uttar-pradesh-china-president-xi-jinping-effigy-burnt-chinese-flag-on-fire-boycott-chinese-products-1690127-2020-06-18 |access-date=18 June 2020 |website=India Today}}</ref> On 3 October 2020, the Indian Army revealed a memorial to commemorate the Indian soldiers who died in Galwan on 15 June during Operation Snow Leopard. The inscription on the memorial reads:<ref>{{cite web |date=3 October 2020 |title=War memorial built for 20 Galwan warriors who caused heavy casualties to Chinese |url=https://www.livemint.com/news/india/new-war-memorial-built-for-20-galwan-warriors-who-caused-heavy-casualties-to-chinese-army-11601711280529.html |access-date=7 October 2020 |website=mint |language=en}}</ref><ref name="DNAIndia-2020">{{cite web |date=3 October 2020 |title=New war memomorial built in memory of 20 Indian soldiers martyred in Galwan valley clashes |url=https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-new-war-memomorial-built-in-memory-of-20-indian-soldiers-martyred-in-galwan-valley-clashes-2847131 |access-date=7 October 2020 |website=DNA India |language=en}}</ref>

{{blockquote|On June 15, 2020 at Galwan Valley, Col B Santosh Babu Commanding Officer, 16 Bihar led the Quick Reaction Force of 16 Bihar and attached troops tasked to evict the PLA OP from Gen AY Nala and move further to Patrolling Point 14. The column successfully evicted the PLA OP from Y Nala and reached PP 14 where a fierce skirmish broke out between the IA and PLA troops. Col B Santosh Babu led from the front and his troops fought gallantly in hand-to-hand combat, causing heavy casualties to the PLA. In the ensuing fight twenty "Gallants of Galwan" achieved martyrdom.|author=|title=|source=}}

The memorial has been built at KM-120 post on the [[Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road|DSDBO Road]].<ref name="DNAIndia-2020" /> The names of those killed in the Galwan Valley clash have been inscribed on the [[National War Memorial (India)|National War Memorial]] in New Delhi.<ref>{{cite web |date=19 January 2021 |title=Galwan martyrs' names put up at war memorial |url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/galwan-martyrs-names-put-up-at-war-memorial-200873 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210120064659/https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/galwan-martyrs-names-put-up-at-war-memorial-200873 |archive-date=20 January 2021 |access-date=28 August 2021 |website=Tribune India}}</ref> [[Special Frontier Force]] company leader Nyima Tenzin was given a public funeral with a [[21-gun salute]] in Ladakh on 7 September 2020.<ref>{{cite news |last=Singh |first=Vijaita |date=7 September 2020 |title=Deceased SFF soldier patrolled areas along LAC for past one month |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/deceased-sff-soldier-patrolled-areas-along-lac-for-past-1-month/article32544762.ece |url-access=limited |access-date=8 September 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref> Nyima Tenzin had died after stepping on a [[1962 war]] mine.<ref>{{cite news |last=Haidar |first=Suhasini |date=7 September 2020 |title=With public funeral for Tibetan soldier, Delhi sends a signal to Beijing |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ram-madhav-in-tibetan-soldiers-funeral-a-strong-signal-to-beijing/article32541848.ece |url-access=limited |access-date=8 September 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref> Tenzin's body was wrapped in both the Indian and [[Flag of Tibet|Tibetan flags]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Philip |first=Snehesh Alex |date=7 September 2020 |title=Tibetan-Indian SFF hero Nyima Tenzin given farewell in Leh, Ram Madhav attends |url=https://theprint.in/defence/tibetan-indian-sff-hero-nyima-tenzin-given-farewell-in-leh-ram-madhav-attends/497423/ |access-date=8 September 2020 |website=ThePrint |language=en-US |quote=According to videos from the site, Tenzin's body{{nbsp}}... was wrapped in both Indian tricolour and the Tibetan flag.}}</ref> In October 2021, 20 soldiers of the ITBP were awarded medals for gallantry along the LAC.<ref>{{cite web |date=24 October 2021 |title=ITBP's 60th Raising Day: 20 Soldiers Get Gallantry Medals For Defending LAC Against China |url=https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-itbps-60th-raising-day-20-soldiers-get-gallantry-medals-for-defending-lac-against-china/398600 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211024092246/https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-itbps-60th-raising-day-20-soldiers-get-gallantry-medals-for-defending-lac-against-china/398600 |archive-date=24 October 2021 |access-date=24 October 2021 |website=Outlook India |language=en}}</ref>

Amidst the standoff, during September and October, DRDO tested "10 missiles in 35 days", with Indian media reporting a total of at least 12 missiles or systems being fired. This included the [[Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle]] and [[Rudram-1]], an air-to-surface anti-radiation missile. The Indian media reported that the DRDO missile testing was considered significant by senior DRDO officials as it was undertaken against the backdrop of the standoff with China. However, it was also noted that COVID-19 had caused delays in previous tests, which were being conducted now.<ref>{{cite news |last=Kulkarni |first=Sushant |date=21 October 2020 |title=Explained: Why has the DRDO recently conducted a flurry of missile tests? |work=The Indian Express |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/drdo-missile-tests-india-china-border-dispute-coronavirus-6821114/ |access-date=25 November 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Gupta |first=Shishir |date=29 October 2020 |title=India test-fires 10 missiles in 35 days. It is not a coincidence |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-races-to-upgrade-its-armoury-fires-a-missile-every-4-days/story-UB5RQaMY4zVlTlYbNFR8EL.html |access-date=25 November 2020}}</ref> Amidst the standoff India decided to expand the scope for the teaching of [[Tibetology]] to its military officers.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pandit |first=Rajat |date=28 January 2021 |title=India China news: Indian Army eyes Tibetology to checkmate China |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/army-eyes-tibetology-to-checkmate-china/articleshow/80489811.cms |url-status=live |access-date=28 January 2021 |website=The Times of India |language=en}}</ref>

==== Reactionary military procurement ====
The skirmishes and standoff has caused reactionary purchases by India.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sethi |first=Deepak |date=22 July 2020 |title=Let Us Not Squander the Reprieve Given By the Galwan Valley Clash |url=https://thewire.in/security/galwan-valley-clash-india-china-strategy |access-date=14 September 2020 |website=The Wire}}</ref> This includes the Indian Air Force starting the process for emergency procurement of 12 [[Sukhoi-30 MKI]] and 21 [[Mikoyan MiG-29]] from Russia.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Negi |first=Manjeet Singh |date=18 June 2020 |title=India to buy 12 Sukhoi, 21 MiG-29s amid India-China standoff |work=India Today |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/indian-air-force-tables-proposal-for-purchase-of-12-sukhoi-21-mig-29s-amid-india-china-standoff-1690350-2020-06-18 |access-date=18 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=18 June 2020 |title=Indian Air Force plans to buy 12 Sukhoi, 21 MiG-29s amid India-China standoff |work=Business Today |url=https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/indian-air-force-plans-to-buy-12-sukhoi-21-mig-29s-amid-india-china-standoff/story/407350.html |access-date=18 June 2020}}</ref> In July, ''[[ThePrint]]'' reported that post Galwan, the Indian Armed Forces were working on over 100 emergency procurement contracts.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Philip |first=Snehesh Alex |date=21 July 2020 |title=Armed forces working on 100 emergency procurement contracts amid tensions with China |work=ThePrint |url=https://theprint.in/defence/armed-forces-working-on-100-emergency-procurement-contracts-amid-tensions-with-china/465408/ |access-date=30 September 2020}}</ref> In July it was reported that India was looking for lightweight tanks that could be used in Ladakh.<ref name="Pubby-2020a">{{Cite news |last=Pubby |first=Manu |date=15 July 2020 |title=India's shopping for lightweight mountain-friendly tanks post China tussles |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-to-buy-light-tanks-for-mountain-warfare/articleshow/76969376.cms?from=mdr |access-date=14 September 2020}}</ref> While lightweights tanks for Ladakh has been noted since 2009, the 2020 China tensions created a sense of urgency.<ref name="Pubby-2020a" /><ref name="Philip-2020b">{{Cite web |last=Philip |first=Snehesh Alex |date=3 August 2020 |title=Russia offers India Sprut lightweight tanks amid stand-off with China |url=https://theprint.in/defence/russia-offers-india-sprut-lightweight-tanks-amid-stand-off-with-china/473796/ |access-date=14 September 2020 |website=ThePrint |language=en-US}}</ref> Despite Russia's offer for its [[2S25 Sprut-SD|Sprut light tank]], India blacklisted the import of light tanks and started working on an indigenous tank (code name "Zorawar"), which is being designed in collaboration with [[DRDO]] and [[Larsen & Toubro]]. The tank is expected to be in production by 2023.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Dangwal |first=Ashish |date=September 20, 2022 |title=India’s 1st Prototype Of ‘Mountain Tank’ To Be Rolled Out By 2023; L&T Says Selected As Development Partner |url=https://eurasiantimes.com/indias-1st-prototype-of-mountain-tank-to-be-rolled-out-by-2023/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230314201836/https://eurasiantimes.com/indias-1st-prototype-of-mountain-tank-to-be-rolled-out-by-2023/ |archive-date=14 March 2023 |access-date=June 16, 2023 |website=eurasiantimes.com }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title='Zorawar' is India's answer to increased armoured threat on the Northern borders |url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2022/aug/26/zorawar-is-indias-answer-to-increased-armoured-threat-on-the-northern-borders-2491711.html |access-date=2023-06-15 |website=The New Indian Express}}</ref> On 28 September 2020, the Defence Acquisition Council, Ministry of Defence, under fast-tracked procurement, ordered an additional 72,400 [[SIG Sauer SIG516#Variants|SIG 716]] for troops in Ladakh; the first batch of SIGs had been ordered in 2019 and have already been delivered to the army.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Philip |first=Snehesh Alex |date=29 September 2020 |title=Indian Army equips troops with American assault rifles amid stand-off with China in Ladakh |work=ThePrint |url=https://theprint.in/defence/indian-army-equips-troops-with-american-assault-rifles-amid-stand-off-with-china-in-ladakh/512735/ |access-date=30 September 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Singh Negi |first=Manjeet |date=12 July 2020 |title=Army to place order for 72,000 more Sig716 assault rifles from US |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/army-to-place-order-for-72-000-more-sig716-assault-rifles-from-us-1699762-2020-07-12 |access-date=12 July 2020 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Moss |first=Matthew |date=14 July 2020 |title=BREAKING: Indian Army Orders More 716i Rifles from SIG Sauer |work=thefirearmblog.com |url=https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/07/14/breaking-indian-army-orders-more-716i-rifles-from-sig-sauer/ |access-date=14 July 2020}}</ref> Emergency purchases also included [[DRDO Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon|DRDO Smart Anti Airfield Weapons]] under the Indigenously Designed Developed and Manufactured (IDDM) category.<ref>{{Cite news |date=28 September 2020 |title=Defence Ministry approves deals worth ₹2,300 crore |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/defence-ministry-approves-deals-worth-2300-crore/article32717265.ece |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=30 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200929052346/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/defence-ministry-approves-deals-worth-2300-crore/article32717265.ece |archive-date=29 September 2020}}</ref>

==== Economic sanctions ====
{{See also|Boycotts of Chinese products|Atmanirbhar Bharat|Make in India}}
[[File:Sonam Wangchuk, 2017 (cropped).jpg|thumb|180px|alt=Sonam Wangchuk wearing 'Goucha',traditional robe of Ladakh and delivering a speech in 2017.|[[Sonam Wangchuk (engineer)|Sonam Wangchuk]] appealed to [[Boycotts of Chinese products|boycott Chinese products]].]]
Initially, India's economic response to China was mainly restricted to patriotic programs on news channels and social media publicity appeals, with very little actual impact on businesses and sales.<ref name="Taskin-2020">{{Cite web |last=Taskin |first=Bismee |date=18 June 2020 |title=Breaking TV sets to boycotting Chinese goods – India's RWAs wage 'war' against Xi's China |url=https://theprint.in/opinion/pov/breaking-tv-sets-to-boycotting-chinese-goods-indias-rwas-wage-war-against-xis-china/444002/ |access-date=25 June 2020 |website=ThePrint}}</ref> In May, in response to the border skirmishes, [[Sonam Wangchuk (engineer)|Sonam Wangchuk]] appealed to Indians to use "wallet power" and boycott Chinese products.<ref name="Ganai-2020">{{Cite web |last=Ganai |first=Naseer |date=30 May 2020 |title=Magsaysay Awardee Sonam Wangchuk Calls For 'Boycott Made in China' |url=https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-software-in-a-week-hardware-in-a-year-magsaysay-awardee-sonam-wangchuk-calls-for-boycott-made-in-china/353838 |access-date=6 June 2020 |website=Outlook India}}</ref> This appeal was covered by major media houses and supported by various celebrities.<ref name="Ganai-2020" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=31 May 2020 |title='Boycott Chinese products': Milind Soman quits TikTok after 3 Idiots' inspiration Sonam Wangchuk's call |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/boycott-chinese-products-milind-soman-quits-tiktok-after-3-idiots-inspiration-sonam-wangchuk-s-call/story-j6wNRmVwmwJ82DUcWfd67J.html |access-date=31 May 2020 |website=Hindustan Times}}</ref>

Following the Galwan Valley clash on 15 June 2020, there were calls across India to [[Boycott Chinese products|boycott Chinese goods]].<ref name="theprint.in2" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=19 June 2020 |title=China reacts cautiously to mounting boycott calls of its products in India, says it values ties |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/china-reacts-cautiously-to-mounting-boycott-calls-products-india-says-values-ties-1690801-2020-06-19 |access-date=20 June 2020 |website=India Today}}</ref> The [[Indian Railways]] cancelled a contract with a Chinese firm, while the [[Department of Telecommunication]] notified [[BSNL]] not to use any Chinese made product in upgradations.<ref name="Dastidar-2020">{{Cite web |last1=Dastidar |first1=Avishek G |last2=Tiwari |first2=Ravish |date=18 June 2020 |title=Chinese firms to lose India business in Railways, telecom |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/business/economy/border-dispute-chinese-firms-india-business-railways-telecom-6464148/ |access-date=20 June 2020 |website=The Indian Express}}</ref> Mumbai cancelled a monorail contract where the only bidders were Chinese companies; and alternatively said it would focus on finding an Indian technological partner instead.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Thomas |first=Tanya |date=19 June 2020 |title=MMRDA cancels ₹500 crore monorail tender which had only Chinese bidders |url=https://www.livemint.com/industry/manufacturing/mmrda-cancels-rs-500-crore-monorail-tender-which-had-only-chinese-bidders-11592588270170.html |access-date=20 June 2020 |website=Livemint}}</ref> Numerous Chinese contractors and firms were under enhanced scrutiny following the 2020 border friction. Chinese imports began undergoing through additional checks at Indian customs.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Sikarwar |first=Deepshikha |date=26 June 2020 |title=100% physical check of imports: Non-Chinese companies like Apple may be exempt |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/100-physical-check-of-imports-non-china-companies-like-apple-may-be-exempt/articleshow/76634586.cms |access-date=26 June 2020}}</ref> In retaliation, customs in China and Hong Kong held up Indian exports.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Raghavan |first=Prabha |date=27 June 2020 |title=Now, Indian exporters complain shipments stuck at China ports |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/business/business-others/now-indian-exporters-complain-shipments-stuck-at-china-ports-6478349/ |access-date=27 June 2020 |website=The Indian Express}}</ref> There were also calls for making sure Chinese companies do not have access to strategic markets in India.<ref name="Ninan-2020">{{Cite web |last=Ninan |first=T. N. |date=20 June 2020 |title=To hit China, aim carefully. Don't shoot yourself in the foot |url=https://theprint.in/opinion/to-hit-china-aim-carefully-dont-shoot-yourself-in-the-foot/445062/ |access-date=20 June 2020 |website=ThePrint}}</ref> [[Swadeshi Jagaran Manch]] said that if the government was serious about making India self-reliant, Chinese companies should not be given projects such as the [[Delhi–Meerut Regional Rapid Transit System|Delhi-Meerut RRTS]].<ref name="Arnimesh-2020">{{Cite web |last=Arnimesh |first=Shanker |date=15 June 2020 |title=RSS affiliate wants Modi govt to cancel Chinese firm's bid for Delhi-Meerut RRTS project |url=https://theprint.in/india/rss-affiliate-wants-modi-govt-to-cancel-chinese-firms-bid-for-delhi-meerut-rrts-project/442119/ |access-date=18 June 2020 |website=ThePrint}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Shrivastava |first=Rahul |date=16 June 2020 |title=Chinese firm bids lowest for Delhi-Meerut project, RSS affiliate asks Modi govt to scrap company's bid |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/chinese-firm-delhi-meerut-project-rss-modi-govt-stec-sjm-1689438-2020-06-16 |access-date=18 June 2020 |website=India Today}}</ref> (However, in the first week of 2021, reports emerged that a Chinese firm had been awarded a contract for construction of 5.6&nbsp;km of the [[Delhi–Meerut Regional Rapid Transit System|Delhi-Meerut RRTS]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=3 January 2021 |title=RRTS project: Chinese firm gets contract for construction of underground stretch |url=https://www.livemint.com/industry/infrastructure/chinese-firm-gets-contract-for-construction-of-underground-stretch-of-delhi-meerut-rrts-project-11609678855713.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210103133129/https://www.livemint.com/industry/infrastructure/chinese-firm-gets-contract-for-construction-of-underground-stretch-of-delhi-meerut-rrts-project-11609678855713.html |archive-date=3 January 2021 |access-date=4 January 2021 |website=Livemint |language=en}}</ref>) Days later, the Transport Minister [[Nitin Gadkari]] announced that Chinese firms would be banned from road projects in India.<ref>{{Cite news |date=1 July 2020 |title=No Chinese Firms In Road Projects, Not Even Joint Ventures: Nitin Gadkari |publisher=NDTV |agency=Press Trust of India |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/wont-allow-chinese-partners-in-road-and-highway-projects-says-nitin-gadkari-2255255 |access-date=2 July 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Dash |first=Dipak K |date=2 July 2020 |title=No Chinese company to be allowed to bid for any highway project: Nitin Gadkari |work=The Times of India |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/no-chinese-company-to-be-allowed-to-bid-for-any-highway-project-nitin-gadkari/articleshow/76739635.cms |access-date=2 July 2020}}</ref> The [[Haryana government]] cancelled a tender related to a power project in which Chinese firms had put in bid.<ref>{{Cite news |date=21 June 2020 |title=Haryana cancels tender after Chinese firms submitted bids |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/haryana-cancels-tender-after-chinese-firms-submitted-bids/article31879814.ece |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=21 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200624014417/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/haryana-cancels-tender-after-chinese-firms-submitted-bids/article31879814.ece |archive-date=24 June 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref> The Uttar Pradesh government Special Task Force personnel were given orders to delete 52 apps including TikTok and WeChat for security reasons while officials in [[Madhya Pradesh Police]] were given an advisory for the same.<ref>{{Cite web |date=20 June 2020 |title=Delete 52 apps, from phones, UP STF personnel told |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/delete-52-apps-from-phones-up-stf-personnel-told-6467220/ |access-date=21 June 2020 |website=The Indian Express}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=21 June 2020 |title=After Galwan clash, states look to end contracts with Chinese firms |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/after-galwan-clash-states-look-to-end-contracts-with-chinese-firms/story-aJVHNdgn63Gyb6BLLhOD2I.html |access-date=24 June 2020 |website=Hindustan Times}}</ref>

Numerous Indian government officials said that border tensions would have no impact on trade between the two countries.<ref name="The Economic Times2" /> Amid the increased visibility of calls for boycotting Chinese goods in the aftermath of the Galwan incidents, numerous industry analysts warned that a boycott would be counter-productive for India, would send out the wrong message to trade partners, and would have very limited impact on China, since both bilaterally as well as globally India is comparatively a much smaller trade power.<ref name="Express-2020b">{{Cite web |date=19 June 2020 |title=Editorial: Easier said |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/india-china-stanfoff-chinese-investment-telecom-sector-economic-retaliation-6465587/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200619115143/https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/india-china-stanfoff-chinese-investment-telecom-sector-economic-retaliation-6465587/ |archive-date=19 June 2020 |access-date=19 June 2020 |website=The Indian Express}}</ref><ref name="Kaul-2020">{{Cite web |last=Kaul |first=Vivek |date=7 June 2020 |title=It's impossible to boycott Chinese products and brands |url=https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/it-s-impossible-to-boycott-chinese-products-and-brands-846596.html |access-date=19 June 2020 |website=Deccan Herald}}</ref><ref name="Shenoy-2020">{{Cite web |last=Shenoy |first=Sonia |date=15 June 2020 |title=Banning Chinese imports or raising tariffs on them will hurt industry, consumer, say Maruti, Bajaj Auto |url=https://www.cnbctv18.com/auto/banning-chinese-imports-or-raising-tariffs-on-them-will-hurt-industry-consumer-say-maruti-bajaj-auto-6141601.htm |access-date=19 June 2020 |website=cnbctv18.com}}</ref><ref name="Sen-2020">{{Cite web |last=Sen |first=Sesa |date=18 June 2020 |title=LAC standoff: Boycott of China products a tall order, trade unlikely to be hurt |url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/business/2020/jun/18/lac-standoff-boycott-of-china-products-a-tall-order-trade-unlikely-to-be-hurt-2158119.html |access-date=19 June 2020 |website=The New Indian Express}}</ref> Experts also stated that while the boycott campaign was a good initiative, replacement products should be available in the immediate future too.<ref name="Pengonda-2020">{{Cite web |last=Pengonda |first=Pallavi |date=29 June 2020 |title=Key sectors caught in crossfire as tensions rise on China border |url=https://www.livemint.com/market/mark-to-market/as-india-china-border-tensions-intensify-some-key-sectors-are-caught-in-the-crossfire-11593387639374.html |access-date=29 June 2020 |website=Livemint}}</ref> An example taken was the pharmaceutical industry in India which meets 70% of its [[active pharmaceutical ingredient]] requirements from China. [[Dumping (pricing policy)|Dumping]] in this sector is being scrutinized.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Dey |first=Sushmi |date=23 June 2020 |title=China Import to India: Government to curb pharma imports from China |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/china-pharmaceutical-imports-to-face-curbs/articleshow/76521034.cms |access-date=24 June 2020 |website=The Times of India}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=5 May 2020 |title=Government may extend anti-dumping duty on Chinese chemical |work=Economic Times |agency=Press Trust of India |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/government-may-extend-anti-dumping-duty-on-chinese-chemical/articleshow/75558730.cms |access-date=29 June 2020}}</ref> By the end of June, some analysts agreed that the border tensions between India and China would give the [[Make in India]] campaign a boost and increase the pace of achieving self-reliance in some sectors.<ref name="Pengonda-2020" />

The issue of Chinese materials in Indian Army [[bulletproof vest]]s was again raised in June after the Galwan incidents.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sarin |first=Ritu |date=21 June 2020 |title=Army's protective gear has Made in China link, Niti member says relook |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/armys-protective-gear-has-made-in-china-link-niti-member-says-relook-6468635/ |access-date=21 June 2020 |website=The Indian Express}}</ref> [[V. K. Saraswat]], a [[NITI Aayog]] member and former [[DRDO]] chief, said that it was due to the quality and the pricing that Chinese material was being used instead of Indian products.<ref>{{Cite web |date=3 June 2020 |title=No Quality Issues in Army Bulletproof Jacket Material Imported From China, Says Niti Aayog Member |url=https://thewire.in/external-affairs/army-bulletproof-jacket-import-china-niti-aayog |access-date=21 June 2020 |website=The Wire}}</ref> Bullet-proof vests ordered by the government in 2019 had up to 40% Chinese material. On 20 June, it was reported that development of an Indian bulletproof vest, the "Sarvatra Kavach", that is 100% made in India, is near completion.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bali |first=Pawan |date=20 June 2020 |title=Indian Army to get 100 per cent Made in India 'Sarvatra Kavach' body armour |url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/200620/indian-army-to-get-100-per-cent-made-in-india-sarvatra-kavach-body-a.html |access-date=21 June 2020 |website=Deccan Chronicle}}</ref> The Maharashtra government put {{INRConvert|5000|c|lk=on|year=2020}} worth of Chinese projects on hold.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sharma |first=Samrat |date=22 June 2020 |title=Maharashtra puts Chinese deals on hold, Yogi Adityanath's UP takes tough stand on imports from China |url=https://www.financialexpress.com/economy/maharashtra-puts-chinese-deals-on-hold-yogi-adityanaths-up-takes-tough-stand-on-imports-from-china/1999333/ |access-date=24 June 2020 |website=The Financial Express}}</ref> The [[Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT)|Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade]] brought out a list of over a 1000 [[Made in China]] goods on which the Government of India has sought comments for imposing import restrictions. Previously, the Department had asked private companies to submit a list of Chinese imports.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bhuyan |first=Rituparana |date=23 June 2020 |title=Chinese imports curbs: DPIIT shares second list of 1172 items; India Inc worried about supply chain |url=https://www.cnbctv18.com/economy/china-import-curbs-dpiit-shares-second-list-of-1172-items-india-inc-worried-about-supply-chain-6189411.htm |access-date=24 June 2020 |website=CNBC TV18}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Mankotia |first=Anandita Singh |date=20 June 2020 |title=Industry told to submit list of Chinese imports |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/industry-told-to-submit-list-of-chinese-imports/articleshow/76474678.cms |access-date=24 June 2020}}</ref> Incidents in Ladakh are also being taken as additional reasons to keep India away from the [[Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership]] in which China has a big role.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pattanayak |first=Banikinkar |date=24 June 2020 |title=Point of no return? China border row adds to India's unease over RCEP |url=https://www.financialexpress.com/economy/point-of-no-return-china-border-row-adds-to-indias-unease-over-rcep/2001577/ |access-date=24 June 2020 |website=The Financial Express}}</ref>

Sales of Chinese smartphones in India were not affected in the immediate aftermath of the skirmishes, despite calls for a boycott. The latest model of Chinese smartphone company [[OnePlus]] sold out within minutes in India on 18 June, two days after the Galwan clash.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kotoky |first=Anurag |date=18 June 2020 |title=Border Conflict Does Little to Damp Chinese Phone Sales in India |url=https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/border-conflict-does-little-to-damp-chinese-phone-sales-in-india |access-date=22 June 2020 |website=BloombergQuint}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=19 June 2020 |editor-last=Das |editor-first=Shouvik |title=As Boycott China Trends on Social Media, OnePlus 8 Pro Sells Out Within Minutes |url=https://www.news18.com/news/tech/as-boycott-china-trends-on-social-media-oneplus-8-pro-sells-out-within-minutes-2677179.html |access-date=22 June 2020 |website=News18}}</ref> [[Xiaomi|Xiaomi India]]'s managing director said that the social media backlash would not affect sales, adding that Xiaomi handsets are "more Indian than Indian handset companies" and that even many non-Chinese phones, people including American handsets, are made in and imported from China.<ref name="BusinessToday-2020b">{{Cite web |date=24 June 2020 |title=Anti-China sentiment may not hit business; Xiaomi India MD tells why |url=https://www.businesstoday.in/current/corporate/anti-china-sentiment-may-not-hit-business-xiaomi-india-md-tells-why/story/407920.html |access-date=25 June 2020 |website=Business Today}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Lohchab |first1=Himanshi |last2=Guha |first2=Romit |date=25 June 2020 |title=Boycott China: Xiaomi more Indian than local handset companies, says India MD |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/hardware/boycott-china-xiaomi-more-indian-than-local-handset-companies-says-india-md/articleshow/76541703.cms |access-date=25 June 2020}}</ref> Following this, the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT), a [[Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh]] associated traders' organisation,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Ramaseshan |first=Radhika |date=5 September 2021 |title=Why Infosys is latest RSS target |work=[[Business Standard]] |url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/why-infosys-is-latest-rss-target-121090500327_1.html |access-date=8 December 2021}}</ref> made a statement claiming that Xiaomi's managing director was "trying to please his Chinese masters by downplaying the mood of the nation".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Banerjee |first=Prasid |date=27 June 2020 |title=CAIT condemns Jain for saying anti-China sentiments are on social media only |url=https://www.livemint.com/companies/people/cait-condemns-xiaomi-s-manu-jain-for-saying-anti-china-sentiments-exist-on-social-media-only-11593267563739.html |access-date=28 June 2020 |website=Livemint}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=27 June 2020 |title=CAIT condemns Xiaomi India head comment |url=https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/cait-condemns-xiaomi-india-head-comment/2006162/ |access-date=28 June 2020 |website=The Financial Express}}</ref> [[TTK Prestige]], India's largest kitchen appliances maker, said it would stop all imports from China from 30 September onwards.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Chandramouli |first=Rajesh |date=28 June 2020 |title=TTK Prestige to stop imports from China |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/ttk-prestige-to-stop-imports-from-china/articleshow/76668556.cms |access-date=28 June 2020 |website=The Times of India}}</ref> On 23 June, the government had ordered all e-commerce companies to show the 'country of origin' for products.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Anand |first=Shefali |date=29 June 2020 |title=India's China Border Face-Off Fuels a Wallet War |work=U.S. News & World Report |url=https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-06-29/rising-anti-china-sentiment-in-india-targets-consumer-products |access-date=1 July 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Dash |first=Sanchita |date=24 June 2020 |title=India tells Amazon, Flipkart, Paytm Mall and all others to show 'country of origin' next to the products |url=https://www.businessinsider.in/business/ecommerce/news/india-tells-amazon-flipkart-paytm-mall-and-all-other-ecommerce-companies-to-show-country-of-origin-next-to-the-products/articleshow/76568106.cms |access-date=1 July 2020 |website=Business Insider}}</ref> In July, [[Hero Cycles]] cancelled {{INRConvert|900|c|lk=on|year=2020}} worth of projects with China as part of their "commitment to boycott Chinese products".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Jagga |first=Raakhi |date=4 July 2020 |title=Plans to do business with China worth Rs 900 crore shelved, says Hero Cycles |work=The Indian Express |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/plans-business-china-rs-900-crore-shelved-hero-cycles-6489756/ |access-date=7 July 2020}}</ref> Amidst the border situation in early August, the premier cricket league in India, [[Indian Premier League]] (IPL), decided to retain Chinese sponsors including the title sponsor [[Vivo (technology company)|VIVO]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=3 August 2020 |title=Chinese Firm Is IPL Sponsor, But People Told To Boycott Goods: Omar Abdullah |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/while-people-boycott-goods-ipl-to-retain-chinese-sponsors-omar-abdullah-2273080 |access-date=3 August 2020 |website=NDTV}}</ref><ref name="Tewari-2020">{{Cite web |last=Tewari |first=Saumya |date=22 June 2020 |title=IPL to lose big if Chinese brands cannot advertise |url=https://www.livemint.com/industry/advertising/ipl-to-lose-big-if-chinese-brands-cannot-advertise-11592821713736.html |access-date=3 August 2020 |website=Livemint |language=en}}</ref> After facing a lot of criticism for this on various fronts, VIVO pulled out itself, supposedly also due to finance issues as well as the border tensions.<ref>{{Cite web |date=3 August 2020 |title=Omar Abdullah, Surjewala slam IPL's move to retain Chinese sponsors |url=https://www.theweek.in/news/sports/2020/08/03/omar-abdullah-surjewala-slam-ipls-move-to-retain-chinese-sponsors.html |access-date=3 August 2020 |website=The Week |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=4 August 2020 |title=RSS-affiliated organization threatens to boycott IPL after BCCI decides to continue Chinese sponsorship |url=https://www.thestatesman.com/sports/rss-affiliate-swadeshi-jagran-manch-1502913927.html |access-date=4 August 2020 |website=The Statesman |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Laghate |first=Gaurav |date=5 August 2020 |title=Chinese smartphone manufacturer Vivo pulls out as title sponsor of IPL 2020 |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/sports/vivo-pulls-out-as-title-sponsor-of-ipl-2020/articleshow/77358587.cms#:~:text=Mumbai:%20Chinese%20smartphone%20manufacturer%20Vivo,following%20the%20Galwan%20stand-off. |access-date=8 August 2020}}</ref> The sponsorship deal was worth $293 million.<ref>{{Cite web |date=6 August 2020 |title=Vivo pulls out as 2020 IPL sponsor amid India-China border row |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/vivo-pulls-2020-ipl-sponsor-india-china-border-row-200806111917311.html |access-date=8 August 2020 |website=Al Jazeera}}</ref> By 15 October, the Indian government had put restrictions on more imports from China including television sets, tyres and air conditioners.<ref>{{Cite news |date=16 October 2020 |title=After TV sets & tyres, govt bans AC imports |work=The Times of India |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/after-tv-sets-tyres-govt-bans-ac-imports/articleshow/78690471.cms |access-date=20 October 2020}}</ref>

On 29 June, the Indian government banned 59 Chinese [[mobile app]]lications including [[TikTok]], [[WeChat]], [[UC Browser]], [[SHAREit]] and [[Baidu]] Maps.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Abi-Habib |first=Maria |date=29 June 2020 |title=India Bans Nearly 60 Chinese Apps, Including TikTok and WeChat |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/world/asia/tik-tok-banned-india-china.html |access-date=1 July 2020 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Rajan |first=Nandagopal |date=1 July 2020 |title=Explained: How will the ban of TikTok and other Chinese apps be enforced; what will be the impact? |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/india-bans-chinese-apps-impact-explained-6482150/ |access-date=1 July 2020 |website=The Indian Express}}</ref> PRC responded with blocking Indian newspapers and websites in mainland China.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Gupta |first=Shishir |date=30 June 2020 |title=Indian websites not accessible in China as Xi Jinping govt blocks VPN |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/indian-websites-not-accessible-in-china-as-xi-jinping-govt-blocks-vpn-report/story-Q8KM5ZRP8dMFceCghGGJeI.html |access-date=7 July 2020}}</ref> Following the initial ban, in September, the Government of India further banned 118 more Chinese apps including popular gaming app, [[PUBG Mobile]], citing the sovereignty and integrity of the country.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Sohini Sarkar |last2=Shivani Kumar |date=2 September 2020 |title=India bans 118 more mobile apps including PUBG |language=en |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/govt-bans-118-more-mobile-apps-including-pubg/story-BJqtksETjNxMLJbBLrodPP.html |access-date=2 September 2020}}</ref> In November, the fourth ban list was released, listing 43 more apps including Alibaba Group's [[AliExpress]], Alipay Cashier and Alibaba Workbench.<ref>{{Cite web |date=24 November 2020 |title=Chinese apps banned list in India: Government blocks access to 43 mobile apps |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/government-blocks-access-to-43-mobile-apps/articleshow/79389252.cms |access-date=24 November 2020 |website=The Times of India |language=en}}</ref> Following the fourth ban list, 200 plus Chinese apps had been banned by the Indian government, including apps owned by Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu, Sina and Bytedance.<ref name="Krishnan-2020d" /> Various initiatives were taken across the country to stop the sale of Chinese goods during the festive season, and in turn replace it with Indian products.<ref>{{Cite news |date=16 October 2020 |title=Jaipur traders won't sell Chinese products this Diwali |work=The Times of India |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/jaipur-traders-wont-sell-chinese-products-this-diwali/articleshow/78689671.cms |access-date=24 November 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Sunder |first=Kalpana |date=9 November 2020 |title=India's latest 'boycott China' move involves cow dung Diwali lights |work=SCMP |url=https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3108720/indias-latest-boycott-china-move-involves-cow-dung-diwali-lights |access-date=24 November 2020}}</ref>

===== Return of Chinese companies =====
By March 2021, Huawei was back into the Indian market with another deal worth {{INRConvert|300|c|lk=on|year=2020}} from [[Bharti Airtel]].<ref name="Khan-2021">{{Cite web |last=Khan |first=Danish |date=6 March 2021 |title=Huawei bags Rs 300 crore network contract from Bharti Airtel |url=https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/huawei-bags-rs-300-crore-network-contract-from-bharti-airtel/81353839 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210305183035/https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/huawei-bags-rs-300-crore-network-contract-from-bharti-airtel/81353839 |archive-date=5 March 2021 |access-date=8 March 2021 |website=Economic Times Telecom |language=en}}</ref> Supposedly Bharti Airtel decided to go ahead since Huawei was already looking after Airtel's long-distance networks.<ref name="TribuneIndia-2021">{{Cite web |date=7 March 2021 |title=Ban or no ban? Huawei bags Airtel contract |url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/business/ban-or-no-ban-huawei-bags-airtel-contract-221945 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210404033143/https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/business/ban-or-no-ban-huawei-bags-airtel-contract-221945 |archive-date=4 April 2021 |access-date=8 March 2021 |website=Tribune India |language=en}}</ref> By August 2021, Chinese apps, including those from companies that had been banned, were back in the Indian cyberspace.<ref>{{Cite web |date=30 August 2021 |title=Chinese apps news: Defying ban, Chinese apps quietly grow in India, again |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/defying-ban-chinese-apps-find-a-way-to-grow-in-indiaagain/articleshow/85745057.cms |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210829173209/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/defying-ban-chinese-apps-find-a-way-to-grow-in-indiaagain/articleshow/85745057.cms |archive-date=29 August 2021 |access-date=6 September 2021 |website=The Times of India |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=30 August 2021 |title=We ought to clarify our stance on Chinese apps |url=https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/we-ought-to-clarify-our-stance-on-chinese-apps-11630339184494.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210830163131/https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/we-ought-to-clarify-our-stance-on-chinese-apps-11630339184494.html |archive-date=30 August 2021 |access-date=6 September 2021 |website=Livemint}}</ref>

===== China India trade =====
{{Image frame|content={{Graph:Chart
 | width=300
 | height=160
 | xAxisTitle=Year
 | yAxisTitle=USD Billion
 | type=line
 | y1Title=India imports from China
 | y2Title=India export to China
 | showSymbols= 
 | x=2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021
 | y1=1.83, 2.62, 3.62, 6.05, 10.17, 15.64, 24.58, 31.59, 30.61, 41.25, 55.48, 54.14, 51.64, 58.23, 61.60, 60.48, 71.89, 73.84, 68.16, 59, 97.52
 | y2=0.92, 1.53, 2.57, 4.10, 7.18, 7.83, 9.49, 10.09, 10.37, 17.44, 16.72, 14.73, 16.42, 13.43, 9.58, 8.92, 12.50, 16.50, 16.95, 19, 28.14
 | colors=#0000aa,#ff8000
}}|caption=India – China Trade at a Glance (USD Billion)<br /> {{font color|white| blue|India imports from China}} {{font color||orange|India exports to China}}<br />Sources:[https://www.trademap.org/ Trademap], [https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/india-china-trade-grows-to-record-125-billion-in-2021-despite-tensions-in-eastern-ladakh/articleshow/88900383.cms ET]}}

On 8 August, the ''[[Business Today (India)|Business Today]]'' reported that mainland China's exports to India since January 2020, amidst the boycott calls, had fallen 24.7 per cent year-on-year according to the Government of India's customs data.<ref name="BusinessToday-2020c">{{Cite web |date=8 August 2020 |title=Boycott China manifests! Chinese exports to India crash 25% in 2020; trade down 19% |url=https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/boycott-china-manifests-chinese-exports-to-india-crash-25-percent-in-2020-trade-down-19-percent/story/412435.html |access-date=11 August 2020 |website=Business Today}}</ref> It was also reported that the share of Chinese smartphones companies in the Indian market fell to 72 per cent during the June quarter 2020 from 81 per cent in the March quarter 2020."<ref name="BusinessToday-2020c" /><ref name="IndiaToday-2020">{{Cite web |date=9 August 2020 |title=After Boycott China call, Chinese exports to India crash 24.7% in 2020; trade drops by 18.6% |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/boycott-china-call-chinese-exports-to-india-in-2020-trade-drops-1709297-2020-08-09 |access-date=2020-08-11 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref> 

However, an article in ''[[The Hindu]]'' attributed the decline largely to the [[COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India]], with imports from China rising back to nearly pre-lockdown levels in July.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Krishnan |first=Ananth |date=11 August 2020 |title=India's imports from China rise in June and July |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/indias-imports-from-china-rise-in-june-and-july/article32320584.ece |url-access=limited |access-date=31 August 2020}}</ref> On 9 September, the ''[[Financial Express (India)|Financial Express]]'' reported that the "Border clash fails to dampen India-China trade" and that there was a "surge in exports" from India to China.<ref name="trade">{{Cite news |last=Pattanayak |first=Banikinkar |date=9 September 2020 |title=Border clash fails to dampen India-China trade |work=Financial Express |url=https://www.financialexpress.com/economy/border-clash-fails-to-dampen-india-china-trade/2078240/ |access-date=1 October 2020}}</ref> Total trade between the countries in 2021 crossed USD 125 billion.<ref>{{Cite news |date=14 January 2022 |title=India-China trade grows to record $125 billion in 2021 despite tensions in eastern Ladakh |work=The Economic Times |agency=PTI |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/india-china-trade-grows-to-record-125-billion-in-2021-despite-tensions-in-eastern-ladakh/articleshow/88900383.cms |access-date=4 February 2022}}</ref>

In February 2022, India banned 54 more Chinese apps over the border clashes.<ref>{{Cite news |date=15 February 2022 |title=India adds 54 more Chinese apps to ban list; Sea says it complies with laws |publisher=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/india/sea-owned-game-free-fire-unavailable-india-after-ban-chinese-apps-2022-02-15/ |url-status=live |url-access=registration |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220215134855/https://www.reuters.com/world/india/sea-owned-game-free-fire-unavailable-india-after-ban-chinese-apps-2022-02-15/ |archive-date=15 February 2022}}</ref>
{{clear}}

==== Kashmir, Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh ====
[[File:Narendra Modi visits Leh, Ladakh on July 03, 2020.jpg|thumb|alt= PM Narendra Modi walking with Indian soldiers|India's prime minister visits Ladakh on 3 July 2020 where he interacted with Indian military personnel deployed at forward positions.<ref>{{Cite news |date=3 July 2020 |title=Highlights from PM Modi's address to soldiers in Ladakh |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/highlights-from-pm-modis-address-to-soldiers-in-ladakh/article31979717.ece |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=3 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200703095812/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/highlights-from-pm-modis-address-to-soldiers-in-ladakh/article31979717.ece |archive-date=3 July 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref>]]
On 6 September, the ''[[Hindustan Times]]'' reported that social media posts were being shared of how locals from Chushul and Merak villages are helping to supply water and other essential to the Indian Army, including front-line areas such as Black Top.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Khajuria |first=Ravi Krishnan |date=6 September 2020 |title=In Chushul's forbidding heights, locals supply water, other essentials to Indian troops |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/in-chushul-s-forbidding-heights-locals-supply-water-other-essentials-to-indian-troops/story-C3TpLDdEgAFmCVKZLx3AlI.html |access-date=8 September 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref>

On 17 June, following the Galwan clash, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, [[Omar Abdullah]] [[Twitter#Tweets|tweeted]], "Those Kashmiris tempted to look towards China as some sort of saviour need only google the plight of [[Uyghurs|Uighur Muslims]]. Be careful what you wish for{{nbsp}}...".<ref name="TheWeek-2020">{{Cite web |date=17 June 2020 |title='Google Uighur Muslims': Why Omar doesn't want Kashmiris to see China as saviour |url=https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2020/06/17/google-uighur-muslims-why-omar-doesnt-want-kashmiris-to-see-china-as-saviour.html |access-date=28 June 2020 |website=The Week}}</ref> He deactivated his Twitter account following the tweet.<ref name="TheWeek-2020" /> Khalid Shah, an Associate fellow at ''[[Observer Research Foundation|ORF]]'', writes that at large the Kashmiri population has "left no stone unturned to mock the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the Chinese belligerence."<ref name="Shah-2020">{{Cite web |last=Shah |first=Khalid |date=26 June 2020 |title=Kashmir's odd reaction to the Ladakh standoff |url=https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/kashmirs-odd-reaction-to-the-ladakh-standoff-68594/ |access-date=28 June 2020 |website=ORF}}</ref> 

[[Stone pelting in Kashmir|Stone pelters in Srinagar]] used slogans such as "''cheen aya, cheen aya''" ({{translation|China has arrived, China has arrived}}) to make fun of the Indian security forces while a joke going around is "''cheen kot woat?''" ({{translation|where has China reached?}}). Memes show Xi Jinping dressed in Kashmiri attire with others showing him cooking [[wazwan]]. Khalid writes that while China has become a part of many conversations, online and offline, India should be worried that "Chinese bullying is compared to the actions of the Government of India".<ref name="Shah-2020" /> Following the tensions with China, communication lines were cut in Ladakh in places along the border causing a communication blackout, resulting in local councillors requesting the government for the lines to be restored.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ganai |first=Naseer |date=25 June 2020 |title='Always With Indian Army, But Restore Communication Services': Ladakh Councillors To Govt |url=https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-always-with-indian-army-but-restore-communication-services-ladakh-councillors-to-govt/355413 |access-date=29 June 2020 |website=Outlook India}}</ref>

Following the Galwan clash former [[Arunachal Pradesh]] chief minister [[Nabam Tuki]] told ''[[The Economic Times]]'' that "After the ugly face-off in Ladakh on Monday night, it is only natural that the residents of the border villages of Arunachal Pradesh will have some worries".<ref name="Sharma-2020">{{Cite news |last=Sharma |first=Shantanu Nandan |date=22 June 2020 |title=What's it like to live in villages along the India-China border? |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/whats-it-like-to-live-in-villages-along-the-india-china-frontier/articleshow/76486005.cms |access-date=3 September 2020}}</ref> [[Prem Das Rai]], a former member of Parliament, says that it is but natural that those along the borders will be concerned.<ref name="Sharma-2020" />

==== Wartime gallantry awards to members of Indian military ====
In January 2021, the Indian government decorated six Indian Army personnel for bravery during the Galwan clash ("Operation Snow Leopard"). One posthumous [[Maha Vir Chakra]], the second-highest wartime gallantry decoration, and five [[Vir Chakra]]s (four posthumous decorations) were awarded.<ref name="gallantry">{{Cite web |date=25 January 2021 |title=List of personnel being conferred gallantry and distinguished awards on the occasion of Republic Day 2021 |url=https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/PIB%20Delhi/FINAL%20AWARD%20RD%202021%20TO%20BE%20ANNOUNCED%20ON%2025%20JAN%202021.pdf |access-date=25 January 2021 |website=Press Information Bureau of India}}</ref><ref name="lifesketches">{{Cite web |date=25 January 2021 |title=Life sketches with photograph of Chakra Series Awardees. |url=https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/PIB%20Delhi/Life%20Sketch%20RD%2021%20final%20copy%20.pdf |access-date=25 January 2021 |website=Press Information Bureau of India}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Key
|-
|align=center style="width:50px;background-color:#e3d9ff;"|†
|Indicates posthumous honour
|}

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! scope="col" | Award
! scope="col" | Rank
! scope="col" | Name
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | References
|-
| [[Maha Vir Chakra]] || [[Colonel]] ||style="background:#e3d9ff;"|[[B. Santosh Babu|B. Santosh Babu<sup>†</sup>]] || [[Bihar Regiment|16 Bihar]] || <ref name="lifesketches" /><ref name="gallantry" />
|-
| [[Vir Chakra]] || [[Naib Subedar]] ||style="background:#e3d9ff;" |Nuduram Soren<sup>†</sup>|| [[Bihar Regiment|16 Bihar]] || <ref name="lifesketches" /><ref name="gallantry" />
|-
| [[Vir Chakra]] || [[Havildar]] ||style="background:#e3d9ff;"| Kadukkaloor Palani<sup>†</sup>|| [[Regiment of Artillery (India)|81 Field Regiment]] || <ref name="lifesketches" /><ref name="gallantry" />
|-
| [[Vir Chakra]]|| [[Havildar]] ||  Tejinder Singh || [[3 Medium Regiment]] || <ref name="lifesketches" /><ref name="gallantry" />
|-
| [[Vir Chakra]]|| [[Naik (military rank)|Naik (Nursing Assistant)]] ||style="background:#e3d9ff;"| Deepak Singh<sup>†</sup>|| [[Indian Army Medical Corps]] || <ref name="lifesketches" /><ref name="gallantry" />
|-
| [[Vir Chakra]]|| [[Sepoy]] || style="background:#e3d9ff;"|Gurtej Singh<sup>†</sup>|| [[Punjab Regiment (India)|3 Punjab]] || <ref name="lifesketches" /><ref name="gallantry" />
|}

==== Diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics ====
After it was revealed that [[People's Liberation Army]] regimental commander Qi Fabao was chosen as a torchbearer for the 2022 Winter Olympics, the [[Ministry of External Affairs (India)|Indian Ministry of External Affairs]] spokesperson Arindam Bagchi stated in a media briefing that "It is indeed regrettable that the Chinese side has chosen to politicise an event like the Olympics". Bagchi also stated that the ''[[chargé d'affaires]]'' of the [[Embassy of India, Beijing|Embassy of India in Beijing]] will not attend the opening or closing ceremony of the Winter Olympics, thus resulting in India effectively announcing a diplomatic boycott of the Olympics.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ramachandran |first=Sudha |date=4 February 2022 |title=India Joins Diplomatic Boycott of Beijing Winter Olympics |url=https://thediplomat.com/2022/02/india-joins-diplomatic-boycott-of-beijing-winter-olympics/ |url-access=limited |access-date=3 February 2022 |publisher=The Diplomat}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=3 February 2022 |title=Virtual Weekly Media Briefing by the Official Spokesperson (February 03, 2022) |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDWBw-Q6DJ4 |access-date=4 February 2022 |website=Ministry of External Affairs, India |type=YouTube video}}</ref> The CEO of Prasar Bharati, India's public broadcaster, announced that they will not air the 2022 Winter Olympics opening and closing ceremony.<ref>{{Cite news |date=3 February 2022 |title=DD Sports will not air Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics opening and closing ceremony |work=ANI News |url=https://www.aninews.in/news/sports/others/dd-sports-will-not-air-beijing-2022-winter-olympics-opening-and-closing-ceremony20220203180611/ |access-date=5 February 2022}}</ref>

=== China ===

==== June 2020 to 2021 ====
[[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP) [[General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party|general secretary]] [[Xi Jinping]] was reported to be under no public pressure to respond to the border tensions with India, even after the Galwan incident.<ref name="Tian-2020">{{Cite news |last1=Tian |first1=Yew Lun |last2=Miglani |first2=Sanjeev |date=24 June 2020 |title=China-India border clash stokes contrasting domestic responses |language=en |work=Reuters |editor-last=MacSwan |editor-first=Angus |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-china-analysis-idUSKBN23U1TX |access-date=11 August 2020}}</ref> ''[[Reuters]]'' reported that "Beijing's response also points to its interest in de-escalating a crisis over a stretch of border that is less politically important than other territorial priorities, such as claims to Taiwan and the South China Sea".<ref name="Tian-2020" />  Long Xingchun, a senior research fellow at the [[Beijing Foreign Studies University]], wrote on 25 May that "unlike previous standoffs, the latest border friction was not caused by accident, but was a planned move of New Delhi. India has been clearly and definitely aware that the Galwan Valley region is Chinese territory."<ref name="battle preparedness">{{Cite news |last=Krishnan |first=Ananth |date=26 May 2020 |title=Chinese President Xi Jinping meets PLA, urges battle preparedness |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/chinese-president-xi-jinping-meets-pla-urges-battle-preparedness/article31680691.ece |url-access=limited}}</ref>

On 26 May, Xi Jinping,<ref name="xi's titles" /> during an annual meeting of PLA representatives urged the military "to prepare for the worst-case scenarios" and "to scale up battle preparedness." He had mentioned "battle preparedness" during his meeting with the PLA in 2019 as well. He said that the COVID-19 pandemic had brought a profound change on the global landscape about China's security and development.<ref name="battle preparedness" />

Following the Galwan clash, on 20 June, the [[Embassy of China, New Delhi|Chinese Embassy in New Delhi]] posted a written diplomatic protest "demanding India to carry out a thorough investigation into the incident{{nbsp}}... [and] strictly discipline Indian front-line troops{{nbsp}}..."<ref>{{Cite web |date=20 June 2020 |title=Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Gave a Step-by-Step Account of the Galwan Valley Incident |url=http://in.china-embassy.org/eng/embassy_news/t1790579.htm |access-date=11 August 2020 |website=Embassy of the People's Republic of China in India}}</ref> On 25 June 2020, in an interview to the ''Press Trust of India'', Ambassador [[Sun Weidong]] said that "the incident was completely instigated by the Indian side and the responsibility does not lie with the Chinese side."<ref>{{Cite web |date=25 June 2020 |title=Chinese Ambassador to India H.E. Sun Weidong Gave Interview to Press Trust of India on Galwan Valley Incident |url=http://in.china-embassy.org/eng/embassy_news/t1792381.htm |access-date=11 August 2020 |website=Embassy of the People's Republic of China in India}}</ref> Concerning the number of Chinese casualties in the Galwan clash, [[Hu Xijin]], the editor of the CCP-owned daily tabloid ''[[Global Times]]'', tweeted "Based on what I know, Chinese side also suffered casualties in the Galwan Valley physical clash" but attached no numbers with it.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brar |first=Aadil |date=19 June 2020 |title=What Are Chinese Saying About the Deadly Sino-Indian Border Clash? |url=https://thediplomat.com/2020/06/what-are-chinese-saying-about-the-deadly-sino-indian-border-clash/ |access-date=3 September 2020 |website=The Diplomat |language=en-US}}</ref>

In August, China arrested a netizen for spreading "rumours" related to the Galwan clash and PLA deaths. He was arrested for writing that poor quality military vehicles manufactured by [[Dongfeng Motor Corporation|Dongfeng Off-road Company]] resulted in the deaths of the PLA soldiers.<ref>{{Cite web |date=7 August 2020 |title=Chinese national mentions PLA Galwan deaths; arrested as 'rumour-monger' |url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/chinese-national-mentions-pla-galwan-deaths-arrested-as-rumour-monger-123416 |access-date=8 August 2020 |website=Tribune India |language=en}}</ref> His arrest was noted in Chinamil.com, a Chinese Ministry of Defence website.<ref>{{Cite news |date=7 August 2020 |title=China arrests netizen for spreading "rumours" of death of Chinese troops in Galwan Valley clash |work=The Economic Times |agency=PTI |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/china-arrests-netizen-for-spreading-rumours-of-death-of-chinese-troops-in-galwan-valley-clash/articleshow/77420189.cms#:~:text=Beijing:%20Chinese%20police%20have%20arrested,the%20official%20media%20here%20reported.&text=Zhou%20was%20arrested%20on%20August%204%20by%20police. |access-date=8 August 2020}}</ref> A ''[[News18]]'' report said that a number of voices, a growing "murmur", from the [[Chinese Diaspora|Chinese diaspora]], showing dissent online has grown. The article mentions Deng Yuwen, Hu Ping and Wang Qianqian's comments about the border dispute, the strength of China's alliance with Russia, and infighting.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Sengupta |first1=Subhajit |last2=Das |first2=Shouvik |date=25 June 2020 |title=Chinese Citizens' Anti-Government Posts on Galwan Clash Seep Through Iron Curtain {{!}} Exclusive |url=https://www.news18.com/news/tech/chinese-citizens-anti-government-posts-on-galwan-clash-seep-through-iron-curtain-exclusive-2686263.html |access-date=11 August 2020 |website=News18}}</ref> In an interview to ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[Cai Xia]], expelled from the CCP on 17 August 2020, said that the recent India-China border clash and "provoking conflict" elsewhere was part of Xi's way to "divert the attention of the Chinese public" from "domestic economic and social tensions" as well as "to consolidate his own position and authority".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kuo |first=Lily |date=18 August 2020 |title='He killed a party and a country': a Chinese insider hits out at Xi Jinping |url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/18/cai-xia-chinese-insider-hits-out-at-xi-jinping-he-killed-a-party-and-a-country |access-date=19 August 2020 |website=The Guardian |location=Beijing |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=19 August 2020 |title=CPC expels Xi's critic, who accused him of provoking conflict with India to divert attention |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/cpc-expels-xi-s-critic-who-accused-him-of-provoking-conflict-with-india-to-divert-attention/story-DEr5fqZIQaruULAzFIkHbK.html |access-date=19 August 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref> On completion of 100 days of the tensions Ambassador [[Sun Weidong]] said that the "onus [is] 'not on China' to resolve [the] border standoff".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Laskar |first=Rezaul H |date=12 August 2020 |title=Chinese envoy says onus 'not on China' to resolve border standoff |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/chinese-envoy-says-onus-not-on-china-to-resolve-border-standoff/story-cHgr3Ekgn5er5xH2Q6XfmN.html |access-date=30 August 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref>

Liu Zongyi, the secretary-general of the Research Centre for China-South Asia Cooperation at Shanghai Institute of International Studies, in an interview on 21 September 2020, said that the Indian Army is nibbling away at Chinese land. He gave the example of Hot Springs near [[Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture|Dêmqog]] as being Chinese territory and said that it was under Indian control as China did not respond fast enough to "India's nibbling".{{efn|Hot Springs is on the Indian side of the [[Charding Nullah]], the [[Line of Actual Control]] between Ladakh and Tibet in this region.}} Zongyi also accused India of having "secretly built roads during the night and at times [developing] roads at a speed of one to two kilometres per day." Zongyi called it an implementation of a "forward policy" or "offensive-defensive" policy. He linked the border tension to [[Hindutva|Hindu nationalism]] and added that India was becoming a "leading anti-China force", even more than the United States.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Liqun |first=Wu |date=21 September 2020 |title=刘宗义：印度自以为把准了中国的脉，所以敢于咄咄逼人 |work=guancha.cn |url=https://m.guancha.cn/liuzongyi/2020_09_21_565802.shtml |access-date=3 October 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Adlakha |first=Hemant |date=28 September 2020 |title=Chinese View: India thinks it has got the better of China, so it can dare China (Interview was conducted by the Observer.com correspondent, Mr. WU Liqun) |url=http://www.indiandefencereview.com/interviews/india-thinks-it-has-got-the-better-of-china-so-it-can-dare-china/ |access-date=3 October 2020 |quote=Translation by Hemant Adlakha}}</ref> Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson [[Wang Wenbin]], on 29 September, once again said that China does not recognise India's union territory of Ladakh, objects to Indian infrastructure construction and that reports of new military bases being built by China were false and motivated.<ref>{{Cite news |date=30 September 2020 |title=China objects to Ladakh status, India's border activities |work=DAWN |agency=AP |location=Beijing |url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1582406 |access-date=3 October 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Patranobis |first=Sutirtho |date=29 September 2020 |title=China says it doesn't recognise 'illegal' UT Ladakh, denies it's building military bases near LAC |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/china-says-it-doesn-t-recognise-illegal-ut-ladakh-denies-it-s-building-military-bases-near-lac/story-F8YXQ1IPEbosZwJynEKzhI.html |access-date=3 October 2020}}</ref>

Following the first ban on Chinese apps, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson [[Zhao Lijian]] as well as the spokesperson of the [[Embassy of China, New Delhi|Chinese Embassy in New Delhi]], Ji Rong, made statements raising concern over the ban.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Basu |first=Nayanima |date=30 June 2020 |title=Banning apps violates WTO rules, will affect employment of Indians: Chinese embassy |url=https://theprint.in/diplomacy/banning-apps-violates-wto-rules-will-affect-employment-of-indians-chinese-embassy/451938/ |access-date=11 August 2020 |website=ThePrint |language=en-US}}</ref> Further, China warned India on 31 July 2020 that a "forced [[Decoupling and re-coupling|decoupling]]" of the economies of both countries will only result in both economies getting hurt, a [[Lose-Lose situation|lose—lose situation]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Krishnan |first=Ananth |date=31 July 2020 |title=Forced decoupling will hurt India and China: Chinese envoy |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/forced-decoupling-will-hurt-india-and-china-chinese-envoy/article32243371.ece |access-date=8 August 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=31 July 2020 |title=China warns India against 'forced decoupling' of their economies |work=The Economic Times |agency=Reuters |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/china-warns-india-against-forced-decoupling-of-their-economies/articleshow/77264606.cms#:~:text=Forced%20decoupling%20is%20against%20the,Valley%20of%20India%27s%20Ladakh%20region. |access-date=8 August 2020}}</ref> Following the Indian governments fourth ban list in November, the [[Embassy of China, New Delhi|Chinese Embassy in India]] stated, "...{{nbsp}}These moves in glaring violation of market principles and WTO rules severely harm the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies,"<ref>{{Cite web |date=25 November 2020 |title=China firmly rejects India's move to ban Chinese apps: FM spokesperson |url=http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-11/25/c_139542483.htm |access-date=26 November 2020 |website=www.xinhuanet.com}}</ref> while Zhao Lijian said that "the Indian government has the responsibility to{{nbsp}}... protect the lawful rights and interests of international investors including Chinese companies."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Aggarwal |first=Mayank |date=25 November 2020 |title=China demands India rescind app ban amid border tension |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/apps-ban-china-india-border-tension-b1761598.html |url-access=limited |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201128122357/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/apps-ban-china-india-border-tension-b1761598.html |archive-date=2020-11-28 |access-date=26 November 2020 |website=The Independent |language=en}}</ref>

On 19 February 2021 and onwards Chinese [[state media]] portrayed the deaths of four soldiers.<ref name="Scroll-2021" /><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Wang |first1=Vivian |last2=Koetse |first2=Manya |date=4 March 2021 |title="Remember Their Faces": An Online Tribute to the Chinese Soldiers Killed in Border Clash with India |url=https://www.whatsonweibo.com/remember-their-faces-an-online-tribute-to-the-chinese-soldiers-killed-on-border-clash-with-india/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210304155112/https://www.whatsonweibo.com/remember-their-faces-an-online-tribute-to-the-chinese-soldiers-killed-on-border-clash-with-india/ |archive-date=4 March 2021 |access-date=6 March 2021 |website=What's on Weibo |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name="Glasgow-2021">{{Cite web |last=Glasgow |first=Will |date=22 February 2021 |title='They died for us': China grieves soldiers killed in clash with India |url=https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fworld%2Fthey-died-for-us-china-grieves-soldiers-killed-in-clash-with-india%2Fnews-story%2F1551df0b1390012f43805bbf420beb65&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&nk=71fe26cf5688a96a1687f1deb991ded5-1623687508 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210614162046/https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&dest=https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/they-died-for-us-china-grieves-soldiers-killed-in-clash-with-india/news-story/1551df0b1390012f43805bbf420beb65&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&nk=71fe26cf5688a96a1687f1deb991ded5-1623687508 |archive-date=14 June 2021 |access-date=14 June 2021 |website=www.theaustralian.com.au |publisher=The Australian}}</ref> On 31 May 2021, a Chinese blogger Qiu Ziming, was sentenced to eight months imprisonment for questioning PLA losses in Galwan.<ref name="ETVBharatNews-2021">{{Cite web |date=11 June 2021 |title=China showcases Galwan hero to drill patriotism |url=https://www.etvbharat.com/english/national/bharat/china-showcases-galwan-hero-to-drill-patriotism/na20210611190557701 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211210000633/https://www.etvbharat.com/english/national/bharat/china-showcases-galwan-hero-to-drill-patriotism/na20210611190557701 |archive-date=10 December 2021 |access-date=14 June 2021 |website=ETV Bharat News |publisher=[[ETV Network]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=1 June 2021 |title=China Blogger Gets 8 Months In Prison For Galwan Casualties Post |work=NDTV |agency=ANI |url=https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/china-blogger-gets-8-months-in-prison-for-galwan-casualties-post-2453816 |access-date=14 June 2021}}</ref> The portrayal of the four deaths as well as appearances on state-media by the regimental commander Qi Fabiao continued to the first anniversary of the event.<ref name="ETVBharatNews-2021" /> On 3 August 2021, China released two short videos on the social media in relation to clashes in 2020.<ref>{{Cite web |date=4 August 2021 |title=China releases footage of Galwan Valley clash after latest round of military talks with India |url=https://scroll.in/latest/1001988/china-releases-footage-of-galwan-valley-clash-after-latest-round-of-military-talks-with-india |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210804082344/https://scroll.in/latest/1001988/china-releases-footage-of-galwan-valley-clash-after-latest-round-of-military-talks-with-india |archive-date=4 August 2021 |access-date=4 August 2021 |website=Scroll.in}}</ref>

In an end-year speech, [[Wang Yi (politician)|Wang Yi]], State Councilor and Minister of Foreign Affairs, took reference to India once, "China and India have maintained dialogue through diplomatic and military channels, and effectively managed and controlled frictions in certain border areas, under a shared commitment to improving and developing the bilateral relations".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Patranobis |first=Sutirtho |date=20 December 2021 |title=India, China 'effectively managed' border frictions: Chinese FM Wang Yi |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/india-china-effectively-managed-border-frictions-chinese-fm-wang-yi-101640023228616.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211220180623/https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/india-china-effectively-managed-border-frictions-chinese-fm-wang-yi-101640023228616.html |archive-date=20 December 2021 |access-date=23 December 2021 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Yi |first=Wang |date=20 December 2021 |title=China's Diplomacy in 2021: Embracing a Global Vision and Serving the Nation and its People |url=http://www.chinamission.be/eng/mhs/202112/t20211220_10471930.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211223050809/http://www.chinamission.be/eng/mhs/202112/t20211220_10471930.htm |archive-date=23 December 2021 |publisher=Mission of the People's Republic of China to the European Union}}</ref>

==== Wartime gallantry awards to Chinese soldiers ====
On 19 February 2021, Chinese revealed that 4 PLA soldiers who had been killed in the Galwan clash as well as the regimental commander were honoured.<ref>{{Cite news |date=19 February 2021 |title=Ladakh: China reveals soldier deaths in India border clash |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56121781 |access-date=6 March 2021}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
!Awards/Citations/Titles conferred
!Posthumous
!Name
!References
|-
|Guardian of the Frontier Hero, [[Order of July the First]]
|Yes
|[[Chen Hongjun]]
|<ref name="Scroll-2021">{{Cite web |date=19 February 2021 |title=China reveals names of four soldiers killed in Galwan Valley clash with India |url=https://scroll.in/latest/987325/china-reveals-names-of-four-soldiers-killed-in-galwan-valley-clash-with-india |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210219043708/https://scroll.in/latest/987325/china-reveals-names-of-four-soldiers-killed-in-galwan-valley-clash-with-india |archive-date=19 February 2021 |access-date=6 March 2021 |website=Scroll.in |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Patranobis |first=Sutirtho |date=31 May 2021 |editor-last=Chanda |editor-first=Amit |title=Chinese soldier killed at Galwan Valley up for top medal |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/chinese-soldier-killed-at-galwan-valley-up-for-top-medal-101622469949408.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210531140735/https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/chinese-soldier-killed-at-galwan-valley-up-for-top-medal-101622469949408.html |archive-date=31 May 2021 |access-date=14 June 2021 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref>
|-
|Hero of Defending China's Border Forces, First-class merit citation
|Yes
|Chen Xiangrong
|<ref name="Reuters-2021">{{Cite news |date=19 February 2021 |title=China reveals 4 soldiers killed in June 2020 border clash with India |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/china-india-border-idUSKBN2AJ05H |url-status=live |access-date=6 March 2021}}</ref><ref name="Glasgow-2021" />
|-
|Hero of Defending China's Border Forces, First-class merit citation
|Yes
|Xiao Siyuan
|<ref name="Reuters-2021" />
|-
|Hero of Defending China's Border Forces, First-class merit citation
|Yes
|Wang Zhuoran
|<ref name="Reuters-2021" />
|-
|Heroic Regimental Commander in Border Defense
|No
|Qi Fabao
|<ref name="Scroll-2021" />
|}

== International ==

=== Protests ===
Small-scale protests against China's actions along the Indo-China border were held in Canada, the United States and Japan.<ref>{{Cite web |date=24 June 2020 |title=Boycott China: Indian community protests outside Chinese consulate in Canada |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/canada-indian-community-protests-chinese-consulate-vancouver-1692181-2020-06-24 |access-date=1 July 2020 |website=India Today}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Negi |first=Manjeet Singh |date=28 June 2020 |title=Japan: Indians, Taiwanese, others protest against Chinese President Xi Jinping's 'dictatorial style of working' |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/japan-protest-against-china-president-xi-jinping-hachiko-statue-tokyo-1694930-2020-06-28 |access-date=1 July 2020 |website=India Today}}</ref> Tibetan-American, Taiwanese-American, and Indian-American held a rally at [[Times Square]] in New York raising placards with slogans such as 'Boycott China', 'Tibet stands with India' and 'Stop Chinese Aggression'.<ref>{{Cite news |date=4 July 2020 |title=Indian-American community holds 'Boycott China' protest at Times Square in New York |work=The Hindu |agency=Press Trust of India |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/indian-american-community-holds-boycott-china-protest-at-times-square-in-new-york/article31989583.ece |url-access=limited |access-date=5 July 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=4 July 2020 |title=Ladakh standoff: Indian, Taiwanese, Tibetan Americans protest at Times Square |work=Business Standard |agency=ANI |url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/ladakh-standoff-indian-taiwanese-tibetans-americans-denounce-china-120070400114_1.html |access-date=5 July 2020}}</ref> On 10 August 2020, a small scale protest against Chinese aggression was held by Indian-Americans at [[National Mall]] facing the [[United States Capitol]] in Washington. The protesters also praised India's move to ban Chinese apps and highlighted the plight of the  [[Uyghurs]].<ref>{{Cite news |date=10 August 2020 |title=Indian-Americans protest China's aggression against India, human rights violations of Uyghurs |work=Hindustan Times |agency=PTI |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/indian-americans-protest-china-s-aggression-against-india-human-rights-violations-of-uyghurs/story-lcGhWvJgl0MFaa6AlvPgTI.html |access-date=10 August 2020}}</ref>

==== Governments ====
*'''{{Flagu|Australia}}''': On 1 June, Australia's High Commissioner to India, [[Barry O'Farrell]] said that the border issue should be solved bilaterally. He also expressed concern about Chinese [[Territorial disputes in the South China Sea|presence]] in the South China Sea.<ref>{{Cite news |date=1 June 2020 |title=It is for India and China to resolve eastern Ladakh dispute bilaterally: Australia |work=The Times of India |agency=[[Press Trust of India]] |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/it-is-for-india-and-china-to-resolve-eastern-ladakh-dispute-bilaterally-australia/articleshow/76136425.cms |access-date=1 June 2020}}</ref>
* '''{{Flagu|France}}''': In the aftermath of the Galwan skirmish, the envoy of France tweeted condolences and concern for the Indian lives lost at Galwan valley.<ref name="TheEconomicTimes-2020" /> On 29 June, the French Defence Minister [[Florence Parly]] wrote to the Indian Defence Minister, extending condolences for the deaths of 20 soldiers, and also extended support over the LAC tensions, "I wish to express my steadfast and friendly support, along with that of the [[French Armed Forces]]". Parley also reiterated France's "deep unity" with India.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Philip |first=Snehesh Alex |date=30 June 2020 |title=France extends 'steadfast & friendly' military support to India amid LAC tensions with China |url=https://theprint.in/diplomacy/france-extends-steadfast-friendly-military-support-to-india-amid-lac-tensions-with-china/451533/v |access-date=1 July 2020 |website=ThePrint}}</ref><ref name="Pubby-2020c">{{Cite news |last=Pubby |first=Manu |date=1 July 2020 |title=France offers support of its forces, proposes Florence Parly's visit |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/france-offers-support-of-its-forces-proposes-parlys-visit/articleshow/76718063.cms |access-date=1 July 2020}}</ref> With this France became the first country to extend the support of its military to India.<ref name="Pubby-2020c" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Laskar |first=Rezaul H |date=30 June 2020 |title=France conveys 'steadfast support' to India amid standoff with China |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/french-defence-minister-conveys-steadfast-support-in-letter-to-indian-counterpart/story-z4EqhOWInmMy0Ifurm2zKP.html |access-date=1 July 2020 |website=Hindustan Times}}</ref>
* '''{{Flagu|Germany}}''': Following the Galwan clash, the envoy for Germany tweeted, "Our heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of the soldiers who lost their lives in Galwan".<ref name="TheEconomicTimes-2020" /> Furthermore, the [[Minister for Foreign Affairs (Germany)|German Minister for Foreign Affairs]] [[Heiko Maas]] urged China and India to de-escalate tensions to avoid a major conflict.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Johnson |first=Ian P. |date=17 June 2020 |title=Germany's Maas urges India, China to 'de-escalate' border tensions |work=DW News |url=https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-maas-urges-india-china-to-de-escalate-border-tensions/a-53852433 |access-date=11 August 2020}}</ref> On 4 September, German Ambassador to India, [[Walter J. Lindner]], made comments regarding the standoff, saying that the situation was "highly dangerous" for everyone and that both the "elephant" and "dragon" should ease tensions.<ref name="Basu-2020">{{Cite web |last=Basu |first=Nayanima |date=4 September 2020 |title=India-China tensions 'highly dangerous' for the world, says German envoy Walter Lindner |url=https://theprint.in/diplomacy/india-china-tensions-highly-dangerous-for-the-world-says-german-envoy-walter-lindner/495740/ |access-date=5 September 2020 |website=ThePrint |language=en-US}}</ref> He added that Germany was feeling the "repercussions" of the tensions in the indo-pacific region.<ref name="Basu-2020" />
* '''{{Flagu|Indonesia}}''': The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia called for India and China to both reduce tensions in the aftermath of Galwan.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pinandita |first=Apriza |date=18 June 2020 |title=Indonesia responds to India, China's latest spat, calls for restraint amid pandemic |url=https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/06/18/indonesia-responds-to-india-chinas-latest-spat-calls-for-restraint-amid-pandemic.html |access-date=28 June 2020 |website=The Jakarta Post}}</ref>
* '''{{Flagu|Italy}}''': The Ambassador of Italy to India, Vincenzo de Luca expressed deepest sympathies following Galwan, adding "India and China are both very important partners not only for Italy, but also for the European Union as a whole." Both countries are crucial actors for regional and global stability".<ref name="TheEconomicTimes-2020" />
* '''{{Flagu|Japan}}''': In response to the Galwan skirmish, Japanese envoy to India Satoshi Suzuki tweeted condolences for the Indian lives lost following Galwan.<ref name="TheEconomicTimes-2020" /> On 18 June the Japanese [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Japan)|Ministry of Foreign Affairs]] called for a peaceful resolution to the situation.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Roche |first=Elizabeth |date=3 July 2020 |title=Amid India-China standoff, Japan signals strong support for New Delhi |url=https://www.livemint.com/news/india/amid-india-china-standoff-japan-signals-strong-support-for-new-delhi-11593759712888.html |access-date=3 July 2020 |website=Livemint}}</ref> Japanese Ambassador to India Satoshi Suzuki, after a meeting with the [[Foreign Secretary of India|Indian Foreign Secretary]] on 3 July, said that "Japan opposes any 'unilateral attempt to change status quo' on LAC."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Bhattacherjee |first=Kallol |date=3 July 2020 |title=Foreign Secretary Shringla speaks to Japanese Ambassador on Ladakh |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/foreign-secretary-shringla-speaks-to-japanese-ambassador-on-ladakh/article31980085.ece |url-access=limited |access-date=3 July 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Laskar |first=Rezaul H |date=3 July 2020 |title=Japan opposes any 'unilateral attempt to change status quo' on LAC |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/japan-opposes-any-unilateral-attempt-to-change-status-quo-on-lac/story-9MsaeUySCW9dIQ4d9dMhIL.html |access-date=3 July 2020 |website=Hindustan Times}}</ref>
* '''{{Flagu|Maldives}}''': In response to the Galwan clash, the Foreign Minister of the [[Maldives]], [[Abdulla Shahid]], tweeted, "Maldives extends deepest condolences to the people of India for the lives lost in recent clashes on the border. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families, loved ones, and communities of the soldiers."<ref name="TheEconomicTimes-2020" />
* '''{{Flagu|Pakistan}}''': Following the Galwan clash, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, [[Shah Mahmood Qureshi]] said that Pakistan was closely watching the situation and "held India responsible for the conflict."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Krishnankutty |first=Pia |date=17 June 2020 |title='Perilous, worst clash in decades' — How foreign media reacted to India-China face-off |url=https://theprint.in/india/perilous-worst-clash-in-decades-how-foreign-media-reacted-to-india-china-face-off/443257/ |access-date=28 June 2020 |website=ThePrint}}</ref> Pakistan officially backed China's position in Ladakh.<ref>{{Cite web |date=26 June 2020 |title=Pakistan says they are worried about being dragged into India-China clash |url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/world/neighbours/260620/pakistan-says-they-are-worried-about-being-dragged-into-india-china-cl.html |access-date=28 June 2020 |website=Deccan Chronicle}}</ref> Amid the India-China standoff, in early July, Indian media reported that Pakistan had moved 20,000 troops to the LoC in Gilgit-Baltistan.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pubby |first=Manu |date=1 July 2020 |title=Pakistan moves 20,000 soldiers to Gilgit-Baltistan LoC |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/pakistan-moves-20000-soldiers-to-gilgit-baltistan-loc/articleshow/76718059.cms |access-date=1 July 2020}}</ref>
* '''{{Flagu|Russia}}''': Roman Babushkin, the Russian Deputy Chief of Mission in Delhi, stated on 1 June that Russia maintains that the issue should be solved bilaterally between India and China.<ref>{{Cite news |date=1 June 2020 |title=Confident India and China Will Find Way Out, Says 'Worried' Russia |work=The Wire |url=https://thewire.in/diplomacy/confident-india-and-china-will-find-way-out-says-worried-russia |access-date=3 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2 June 2020 |title=Sino-Indian military face-off in Ladakh worries Russia |work=[[Deccan Chronicle]] |url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/020620/sino-indian-military-face-off-in-ladakh-worries-russia.html |access-date=3 June 2020}}</ref> On 2 June, the Foreign Secretary of India updated and discussed the situation with the Russian Ambassador to India, Nikolay R. Kudashev.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Basu |first=Nayanima |date=5 June 2020 |title=India discussed China border tensions also with Russia, the same day Modi and Trump spoke |url=https://theprint.in/diplomacy/india-discussed-china-border-tensions-also-with-russia-the-same-day-modi-and-trump-spoke/436500/ |access-date=6 June 2020 |website=ThePrint}}</ref> Following Galwan, on 17 June, the [[List of ambassadors of India to Russia|Ambassador of India in Russia]] spoke to the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister about the situation.<ref>{{Cite web |date=17 June 2020 |title=Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov's telephone conversation with Indian Ambassador to Russia Bala Venkatesh Varma |url=https://www.mid.ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/UdAzvXr89FbD/content/id/4167815 |access-date=18 June 2020 |website=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation}}</ref> [[Dmitry Peskov]], Press Secretary for the President of Russia, said that the situation was being closely watched.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Aneja |first=Atul |date=19 June 2020 |title=Ladakh face-off {{!}} Russia begins discreet moves to defuse India-China tension |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/ladakh-face-off-russia-begins-discreet-moves-to-defuse-india-china-tension/article31873222.ece |access-date=20 June 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref>

:Russia initiated virtual talks with India and China on 22 June.<ref name="Express-2020">{{Cite web |date=16 June 2020 |title=Jaishankar to hold talks with China, Russia on June 22 |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/jaishankar-to-hold-talks-with-china-russia-on-june-22-6460777/ |access-date=16 June 2020 |website=The Indian Express}}</ref><ref name="Bagchi-2020" /> Russia had scheduled the RIC trilateral for March but delayed it due to the COVID-19 pandemic.<ref name="Express-2020" /> About the border situation between India and China, Foreign Minister of Russia, [[Sergey Lavrov]] said that the topics for the meeting were already been agreed upon and "the RIC agenda does not involve discussing issues that are related to bilateral relations of a country with another member."<ref>{{Cite news |date=18 June 2020 |title=Moscow rules out bilateral talks at RIC Meet; show restraint: EU |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/moscow-rules-out-bilateral-talks-at-ric-meet-show-restraint-eu/articleshow/76438063.cms |access-date=26 June 2020}}</ref> During the trilateral meeting India reminded Russia and China of India's selfless involvement in the Russian and Chinese interests during the World War II, where India helped both the countries by keeping supply lines opened in the [[Persian Corridor]] and over the [[The Hump|Himalayan Hump]].<ref name="RIC12">{{Cite news |date=23 June 2020 |title=At Russia-India-China Meet, India Talks of Need to Respect Legitimate Interest of Partners |work=The Wire |url=https://thewire.in/diplomacy/india-russia-china-ric-trilateral-meeting |access-date=26 June 2020}}</ref>

:Russia argued that a Sino-Indian confrontation would be a "bad idea" for both the countries, for the [[Eurasia]]n region and the international system. Russia said such a confrontation will damage the Chinese legitimacy in the international system and will reduce the existing limited Chinese soft power. It had advised both the countries that it would be a winnable situation for both the countries with no confrontation while giving the example of zero confrontation of the Soviet Union and the US during the [[Cold War]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Chenoy |first=Anuradha |date=25 June 2020 |title=Russia India China (RIC) and the Politics of Triangulation |work=The Citizen (India) |url=https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/index/4/18946/Russia-India-China-RIC-and-the-Politics-of-Triangulation |access-date=26 June 2020 |archive-date=29 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200629075738/https://www.thecitizen.in//index.php/en/newsdetail/index/4/18946/russia-india-china-ric-and-the-politics-of-triangulation |url-status=dead }}</ref> Russia also proposed to hold the first meeting of the defence chiefs of the three countries which China and India also agreed during the meeting. However, Russia reiterated that China and India can sort out their differences through bilateral means without the involvement of a third party including Russia.<ref name="RIC12" />

* '''{{Flagu|United Kingdom}}''': The British High Commissioner to India was deeply concerned over the Galwan skirmish and said India and China must resolve this through dialogue.<ref name="NDTV-2020b">{{Cite web |date=25 June 2020 |others=Press Trust of India |title=UK PM Boris Johnson Says China-India Standoff "Very Serious, Worrying" |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/uk-pm-boris-johnson-says-china-india-standoff-very-serious-worrying-2251969 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200625122901/https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/uk-pm-boris-johnson-says-china-india-standoff-very-serious-worrying-2251969 |archive-date=25 June 2020 |access-date=23 December 2021 |website=NDTV}}</ref> Prime Minister Boris Johnson also expressed concerns and the UK was closely monitoring the situation in the valley.<ref name="NDTV-2020b" />
* '''{{Flagu|United States}}''': US President [[Donald Trump]], on 27 May 2020, offered to mediate between China and India. This offer was rejected by both countries. The US Secretary of State, [[Mike Pompeo]] also raised the issue in a podcast, and referring to China said that these were the kind of actions that authoritarian regimes took and that they can have a real impact.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Westcott |first1=Ben |last2=Sud |first2=Vedika |date=4 June 2020 |title=Indian defense minister admits large Chinese troop movements on border |publisher=[[CNN]] |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/india/china-india-border-standoff-intl-hnk/index.html |access-date=4 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2 June 2020 |title=Bipartisan U.S. blame directed at Beijing over China-India border dispute |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-reaction-india-china-dispute-1.5594883 |publisher=CBC News |agency=Thomson Reuters}}</ref> [[Eliot Engel]], chief of the [[United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs|US House Foreign Affairs Committee]], also expressed concern with the situation. He said that "China was demonstrating once again that it was willing to bully its neighbors".<ref>{{Cite news |date=2 June 2020 |title=US Foreign Affairs Panel Chief Slams 'Chinese Aggression' Against India |publisher=NDTV |editor-last=Roy |editor-first=Divyanshu Dutta |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-china-lac-ladakh-us-foreign-affairs-panel-chief-slams-chinese-aggression-against-india-2239045 |access-date=3 June 2020}}</ref> On 2 June, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump discussed the Sino-Indian border situation.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sharma |first=Akhilesh |date=2 June 2020 |title=PM Modi, Trump Discuss India-China Border Tension, George Floyd Protests |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pm-modi-donald-trump-speak-on-phone-discuss-india-china-border-situation-ongoing-civil-disturbances-in-us-2239648 |access-date=3 June 2020 |publisher=NDTV}}</ref> In the aftermath of Galwan, the US Secretary of State tweeted condolences to the people of India for the lives lost;<ref>{{Cite web |date=19 June 2020 |title=Galwan valley clash: Mike Pompeo extends deepest condolences to Indians for loss of soldiers' lives in clashes with Chinese |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pompeo-extends-deepest-condolences-to-indians-for-loss-of-soldiers-lives-in-clashes-with-chinese/articleshow/76456099.cms |access-date=20 June 2020 |website=The Times of India}}</ref> while the US Department of State said that the situation was being closely watched.<ref name="TheEconomicTimes-2020">{{Cite news |date=20 June 2020 |title=India-China face-off: US, France, Japan and others mourn soldiers' death |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-china-face-off-us-france-japan-and-others-mourn-soldiers-death/articleshow/76475429.cms |access-date=20 June 2020}}</ref> On 18 June [[Mitch McConnell]] stated that "for the sake of grabbing territory, the PLA appears to have instigated the most violent clash between China and India since those nations went to war in 1962".<ref name="NDTV-2020" />

:On 20 June, US President Donald Trump said that the US is in touch with both China and India to assist them in resolving the tensions.<ref>{{Cite news |date=21 June 2020 |title=Ladakh face-off {{!}} U.S. talking to India and China, will try and help them out, says Donald Trump |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/us-talking-to-india-and-china-will-try-and-help-them-out-trump/article31880814.ece |access-date=21 June 2020 |issn=0971-751X}}</ref> On 25 June, Mike Pompeo stated that American troops were being moved out of Germany and are being redeployed in India and other American allied South East Asian countries because of the recent actions by the Chinese Communist Party and to be appropriately positioned to act as a counter to the PLA.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bagchi |first=Indrani |date=26 June 2020 |title=Mike Pompeo: Moving Europe troops to counter China threat to India: US |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/moving-europe-troops-to-counter-china-threat-to-india-us/articleshow/76633775.cms |access-date=26 June 2020 |website=The Times of India}}</ref>

:On 1 July, following India's ban on 59 Chinese [[mobile app]]s, Mike Pompeo welcomed the decision and said that the move would boost India's 'sovereignty, integrity and national security'.<ref>{{Cite web |date=1 July 2020 |editor-last=Tiwari |editor-first=Vaibhav |title="Will Boost India's Sovereignty": US Welcomes Ban On Chinese Apps |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/us-welcomes-ban-on-chinese-apps-will-boost-indias-integrity-2255478 |access-date=2 July 2020 |website=NDTV.com}}</ref> On 24 September 2020, US President Donald Trump once again offered to mediate between China and India.<ref>{{Cite news |date=25 September 2020 |title="If We Can Help, Would Love To Help": Trump On India-China Border Row |work=NDTV |agency=PTI |url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/would-love-to-help-donald-trump-offers-mediation-on-india-china-border-row-2300713 |access-date=25 September 2020}}</ref>[[File:India-USA 2+2 Dialogue, in New Delhi on October 27, 2020.jpg|210px|thumb|right|During the 2+2 Dialogue in late October both India and United States made references to the border tensions with China.<ref>{{Cite news |date=28 October 2020 |title=India, US can jointly deter China's tyranny: Mike Pompeo |work=The Times of India |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-us-can-jointly-deter-chinas-tyranny-mike-pompeo/articleshow/78901215.cms |access-date=28 October 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Basu |first=Nayanima |date=27 October 2020 |title=With a message for Pakistan and China, India & US conclude 2+2 talks, vow to deepen ties |work=ThePrint |url=https://theprint.in/diplomacy/with-a-message-for-pakistan-and-china-india-us-conclude-22-talks-vow-to-deepen-ties/531996/ |access-date=28 October 2020}}</ref>]] [[File:210320-D-BN624-1511 (51055540198).jpg|thumb|210x210px|The US Secretary of Defense and Indian Minister of Defense in New Delhi, March 2021. US Secretary of Defense stated "...{{nbsp}}we had never considered that India and China were on the threshold of war{{nbsp}}...".<ref>{{Cite web |date=20 March 2021 |title=Never considered India, China were on threshold of war: US defence secretary on LAC row |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/never-considered-india-china-were-on-threshold-of-war-us-defence-secretary-on-lac-row/articleshow/81605807.cms |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210320124800/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/never-considered-india-china-were-on-threshold-of-war-us-defence-secretary-on-lac-row/articleshow/81605807.cms |archive-date=20 March 2021 |access-date=26 March 2021 |website=The Times of India |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=20 March 2021 |title=US Never Considered India, China Were on Verge of War: Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin |url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/us-never-considered-india-china-were-on-verge-of-war-defence-secretary-lloyd-austin-3556004.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210320153732/https://www.news18.com/news/india/us-never-considered-india-china-were-on-verge-of-war-defence-secretary-lloyd-austin-3556004.html |archive-date=20 March 2021 |access-date=26 March 2021 |website=News18 |language=en}}</ref>]]In December, the annual report of the [[United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission|US-China Economic and Security Review Commission]] pointed to China having planned the Galwan incident,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jha |first=Lalit K. |date=7 December 2020 |title=China Planned Galwan Valley Incident, Says US Congressional Panel Report |url=https://thewire.in/external-affairs/china-planned-galwan-valley-incident-says-us-congressional-panel-report |access-date=8 December 2020 |website=The Wire}}</ref> "Some evidence suggested the Chinese government had planned the incident, potentially including the possibility for fatalities."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Philip |first=Snehesh Alex |date=2 December 2020 |title=Galwan clash could have been planned by China, US Congress panel report says |url=https://theprint.in/defence/galwan-clash-could-have-been-planned-by-china-us-congress-panel-report-says/555936/ |access-date=8 December 2020 |website=ThePrint |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>[https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/2020_Annual_Report_to_Congress.pdf ''2020 Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic And Security Review Commission'']. 116th Congress (Second Session). December 2020. Retrieved on 8 December 2020.</ref> On 23 March 2021, Admiral [[John C. Aquilino]] told the [[United States Senate Committee on Armed Services|Senate Armed Services Committee]] that India-China trust was at an all-time low.<ref>{{Cite web |date=24 March 2021 |title=Mistrust between China, India at all-time high, says US admiral |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/mistrust-between-china-india-at-all-time-high-says-us-admiral-101616562411618.html |access-date=26 March 2021 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref>

;Government-in-exile
*{{Flagicon|Tibet}} '''[[Central Tibetan Administration|Tibet]]''': President [[Lobsang Sangay]] made statements related to the border clashes, saying that "what happened to Tibet could happen to India" and that "the Indian government should make Tibet one of the key issues in its policies on China".<ref>{{Cite web |title=What happened to Tibet could happen to India, says Dr Lobsang Sangay on Chinese aggression |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/video/what-happened-to-tibet-could-happen-to-india-says-dr-lobsang-sangay-on-chinese-aggression-1687211-2020-06-09 |access-date=23 July 2020 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Chaudhury |first=Dipanjan Roy |title=Indian government should make Tibet one of the key issues in its policies on China: Lobsang Sangay |work=The Economic Times |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/indian-govt-should-make-tibet-one-of-the-key-issues-in-its-policies-on-china/articleshow/76802498.cms |access-date=23 July 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Miglani |first=Sanjeev |date=29 June 2020 |title=India must raise Tibet issue with China, says exiled leader |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://in.reuters.com/article/india-china-tibet-idINKBN2401ZS |access-date=23 July 2020}}</ref>

==== Organisations ====
* '''{{Flagu|European Union}}''': Following the Galwan skirmish on 15 June, the spokesperson for the European Union, Virginie Battu-Henriksson, called for de-escalation and a peaceful resolution.<ref name="Rajghatta-2020">{{Cite web |last=Rajghatta |first=Chidan |date=18 June 2020 |title=US, EU and UN call for peaceful resolution of Ladakh situation |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/us-eu-and-un-call-for-peaceful-resolution-of-ladakh-situation/articleshow/76435040.cms |access-date=18 June 2020 |website=The Times of India}}</ref>
* '''{{Flagu|United Nations}}''': Following the Galwan skirmish, the United Nations called for de-escalation and a peaceful resolution.<ref name="Rajghatta-2020" /><ref name="EuropeanFoundationforSouthAsianStudies(EFSAS)-2020" />

==== Commentary ====
An editorial was published in the ''[[Taipei Times]]'' titled, "Taiwan must stand with India" on 19 June 2020. The article analysed the India China border clashes; and ended by saying "Taiwan should deepen ties with India, in particular economic, military and intelligence ties, to contain Chinese expansionism and put Xi back into his box."<ref>{{Cite web |date=19 June 2020 |title=EDITORIAL: Taiwan must stand with India – Taipei Times |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2020/06/19/2003738465 |access-date=23 July 2020 |website=Taipei Times}}</ref>

The [[European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS)]] wrote on 7 August 2020 that India's reaction to Chinese aggression has "surprised China".<ref>{{Cite web |date=8 August 2020 |title=India confident in standing solo against China in any future border dispute: European think tank |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-confident-in-standing-solo-against-china-in-any-future-border-dispute-european-think-tank/story-nTHJ6DgOHp3sOuAKDTHjdM.html |access-date=16 September 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref> In a previous commentary in early July, EFSAS stated that China should realise that if it forces India into a corner, India will join "the ever-growing comity of nations that seek to compel China to adhere to the norms of the international order and abide by the rule of law", irrespective of India wanting or not wanting to walk down that path.<ref>{{Cite web |date=3 July 2020 |title=China may well rue pushing India to the crossroads and possibly toward the United States |url=https://www.efsas.org/commentaries/china-may-well-rue-pushing-india-to-the-crossroads-and-possibly-toward-the-us/ |access-date=16 September 2020 |website=European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS) |language=en}}</ref> In early September, EFSAS stated that India's tactical responses in Ladakh left "China stuck in quicksand of its own making."<ref>{{Cite web |date=5 September 2020 |title=India's tactical responses to Chinese transgression attempts in Ladakh left China stuck in quicksand: EFSAS |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/indias-tactical-responses-to-chinese-transgression-attempts-in-ladakh-left-china-stuck-in-quicksand-efsas/articleshow/77948802.cms |access-date=16 September 2020 |website=The Times of India |language=en}}</ref>

On 19 September 2020, an article in the ''[[Nikkei Asian Review]]'' and the ''Hindustan Times'' noted that in 2020 while the world was busy watching the US and China conduct military exercises in the [[South China Sea]] from July through September, a distraction, "Beijing was engaged in a real-life standoff with India in the Himalayas".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kosaka |first=Tetsuro |date=19 September 2020 |title=US vs China: South China Sea drills centered on submarine warfare |url=https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/US-China-tensions/US-vs-China-South-China-Sea-drills-centered-on-submarine-warfare |access-date=26 September 2020 |website=Nikkei Asian Review |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Gupta |first=Shishir |date=20 September 2020 |title=PLA opens three fronts in South China Sea to distract the world from Ladakh |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/pla-war-drill-in-south-china-sea-a-distraction-for-ladakh-aggression-or-otherwise-analysis/story-I2IiROajJhYTeW0ZWyimFK.html |access-date=26 September 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref>

A survey of over 1,000 Americans (reported on 1 September 2020) found that "over 63 per cent of Americans support neither China nor India if they were to engage in a military conflict. In the case of an economic conflict, 60.6 per cent of respondents supported no interference."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nayar |first=Mandira |date=1 September 2020 |title=Low public support for US intervention in an India-China war: Survey |url=https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2020/09/01/low-public-support-for-us-intervention-in-any-india-china-war-survey.html |access-date=8 December 2020 |website=The Week |language=en}}</ref>

==== Quadrilateral Security Dialogue ====
On 9 September 2020, Japan and India signed the [[Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement]]. Australia and India signed a similar Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA) on 4 June 2020. With this, India has military logistics sharing pacts with all partners of the [[Quadrilateral Security Dialogue]] (Quad).<ref name="Bhaumik-2020-1" />

== In media ==

=== Information war ===
In June, media reports started emerging of India losing the [[Information warfare|information and perception war]] to China.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Deepak |first=Anushka |date=16 June 2020 |title=India losing information war to China: Gen Malik on Ladakh face-off |url=https://thefederal.com/news/india-losing-information-war-to-china-gen-malik-on-ladakh-face-off/ |access-date=23 July 2020 |website=The Federal |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Philip |first=Snehesh Alex |date=3 July 2020 |title=Modi govt needs to come clean on China. India must win information wars too |url=https://theprint.in/opinion/brahmastra/modi-govt-needs-to-come-clean-on-china-india-must-win-information-wars-too/453508/ |access-date=23 July 2020 |website=ThePrint |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name="SinghM-2020a">{{Cite web |last=Singh |first=Mayank |date=17 June 2020 |title=Ladakh standoff: China took lead in perception war, India has been too slow |url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/jun/17/ladakh-standoff-china-took-lead-in-perception-war-india-has-been-too-slow-2157553.html |access-date=23 July 2020 |website=The New Indian Express}}</ref> China's information warfare focused on trying to portray India as the aggressor and at the same time used the state media to repeatedly emphasize China's economic and military power.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Masand |first=Harish |date=4 July 2020 |title=The Dragon's Design: Info War on Indo-China Clash |url=http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/the-dragons-design-info-war-on-indo-china-clash/ |access-date=23 July 2020 |website=Indian Defence Review |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name="Guha-2020">{{Cite web |date=8 July 2020 |title=China's state media propaganda will not win it a war with India |url=https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/chinas-state-media-propaganda-will-not-win-it-a-war-with-india/1889446 |access-date=23 July 2020 |website=Outlook India}}</ref> An article in the [[The New Indian Express|New Indian Express]] on 17 July 2020 stated that Indian soldiers felt that "India, with its muted approach, allowed China to dominate the narrative."<ref name="SinghM-2020a" /> Pakistan has helped China in the information war against India.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Goyal |first1=Prateek |last2=Priyadarshini |first2=Anna |date=18 July 2020 |title=How a 'disinformation network' on Twitter added to the tension surrounding the Galwan Valley conflict |url=https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/07/18/how-a-disinformation-network-on-twitter-added-to-the-tension-surrounding-the-galwan-valley-conflict |access-date=23 July 2020 |website=Newslaundry |language=en}}</ref>

Tara Kartha, a former director in the [[National Security Council (India)|National Security Council Secretariat]] of India, in August 2020, wrote on China's [[Psy ops|psy–ops]] and propaganda during the skirmishes. She noted China's use of "strong media messaging" such as videos of "the swift mobilization of troops by air and train from [[HuBei province|Hubei province]] to the Indian borders". She points out that the troops were from the [[Wuhan]] area (a sub-provincial city of [[HuBei province|Hubei]]), the original epicentre of the coronavirus and that the "swift mobilization" would also mean the troops weren't [[Acclimatization|acclimatized]] for the high altitude battleground of eastern Ladakh. Another video was of the deployment of [[CAIC Z-10|Z-10 attack helicopters]]. Kartha notes that the original Z-10 has "underpowered engines (which make) it unsuitable for high altitudes" and that even Pakistan preferred American and Turkish aircraft rather than the Chinese variants.<ref name="auto6">{{Cite web |last=Kartha |first=Tara |date=18 August 2020 |title=This is how China deployed psy-war after Ladakh. And why India isn't replying |url=https://theprint.in/opinion/this-is-how-china-deployed-psy-war-after-ladakh-and-why-india-isnt-replying/483545/ |access-date=27 September 2020 |website=ThePrint |language=en-US}}</ref>

Kartha mentions other attempts of propaganda by China, including reports of deploying karate fighters, capabilities of is naval prowess, 'power messaging' by Xi such as his directive to PLA to get ready for war, the usage of "wolf warriors" such as [[Hou Yanqi]], the [[List of ambassadors of China to Nepal|Chinese Ambassador to Nepal]]; while statements directed at keeping friendly relations, especially with the business community of the world are made by other senior officials such as China's Foreign Minister.<ref name="auto6"/> The ''[[Hindustan Times]]'' noted that most of the [[Psychological operations|psy-ops]] tactics utilised by the PLA during the [[2017 China–India border standoff|Doklam stand-off]] are being seen here again.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gupta |first=Shishir |date=6 June 2020 |title=Psy Ops: In Ladakh standoff with India, China's PLA replays Doklam tactics |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/psy-ops-in-ladakh-standoff-with-india-china-s-pla-replays-doklam-tactics/story-jdayDZNxROU1MOzeZ6Q7wM.html |access-date=27 September 2020 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref> ''[[India Today]]'' noted that the PLA have also conducted firing drills at locations from where the Indian troops can hear the sounds.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Negi |first=Manjeet Singh |date=9 September 2020 |title=Psyops? China holds firing practice near LAC in bid to spook Indian troops |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/china-deploys-psyops-holds-firing-practice-near-lac-to-spook-india-troops-1720263-2020-09-09 |access-date=27 September 2020 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref>

=== News media ===
Chinese state media have given little to no attention to the dispute and have downplayed the clashes. In the first month of the standoff, there was only a single editorial piece in the ''[[China Daily]]'' and the ''[[People's Daily]]''.<ref name="Kaushik-2020">{{Cite web |last=Kaushik |first=Krishn |date=6 June 2020 |title=Chinese media largely quiet on standoff |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/chinese-media-largely-quiet-on-standoff-6444849/ |access-date=21 June 2020 |website=The Indian Express}}</ref> The ''People's Daily'' and the ''[[PLA Daily]]'' did not cover the Galwan clash while the CCP-owned tabloid ''[[Global Times]]'' (Chinese) carried it on page 16.<ref name="AlJazeera-2020b">{{Cite web |date=17 June 2020 |title=How Indian and Chinese media reported the deadly Ladakh clash |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/06/indian-chinese-media-reported-deadly-ladakh-clash-200617041240570.html |access-date=21 June 2020 |publisher=Al Jazeera}}</ref> The state broadcaster [[CCTV-1|China Central Television]] (CCTV) carried the official military statement on social media with no further coverage.<ref name="AlJazeera-2020b" /> The ''Global Times'' ran a number of opinion pieces and one editorial which questioned why China did not disclose its death toll publicly.<ref name="AlJazeera-2020b" /><ref name="Kaushik-2020" /><ref name="Geevarghese-2020">{{Cite web |last=Geevarghese |first=Danny |date=21 June 2020 |title=Sino-Indian border clashes were largely ignored by Chinese media |url=https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world/sino-indian-border-clashes-were-largely-ignored-by-chinese-media-5434731.html |access-date=21 June 2020 |website=Moneycontrol}}</ref> 

China analyst Yun Sun explained that while there may be very little information in the English media of China about the border dispute, there is much more analysis in the Chinese language media.<ref>{{Cite web |date=30 June 2020 |title=China was surprised in Doklam, never thought India would challenge it: China expert Yun Sun |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/china-was-surprised-in-doklam-never-thought-india-would-challenge-it-china-scholar-yun-sun-1695672-2020-06-30 |access-date=4 July 2020 |website=India Today |language=en |quote=She said while the English media in China may not have sufficient text to give an idea of the Chinese thinking over the present situation, but there is an abundance of information on China's strategy and motivation that is available in the Chinese language media.}}</ref> Chinese state media however welcomed Prime Minister Modi's 19 June statement.<ref name="hindustantimes_0619" /> The ''Global Times'' quoted Lin Minwang, a professor at [[Fudan University]]'s Center for South Asian Studies in Shanghai, as saying that "Modi's remarks will be very helpful to ease the tensions because as the Prime Minister of India, he has removed the moral basis for hardliners to further accuse China".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Krishnan |first=Ananth |date=21 June 2020 |title=Chinese media lauds Modi's speech |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ladakh-face-off-chinese-media-lauds-modis-speech/article31884175.ece |access-date=27 June 2020}}</ref> In late June China blocked access to all Indian media and newspaper websites.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Gupta |first=Shishir |date=30 June 2020 |title=Indian websites not accessible in China as Xi Jinping govt blocks VPN |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/indian-websites-not-accessible-in-china-as-xi-jinping-govt-blocks-vpn-report/story-Q8KM5ZRP8dMFceCghGGJeI.html |access-date=2 July 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2 July 2020 |title=China blocks Indian media websites, INS seeks govt action |work=The Indian Express |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/china-blocks-indian-media-websites-ins-seeks-govt-action-6485887/ |access-date=2 July 2020}}</ref>

In India, before the 15 June clash, some Indian media persons and defence analysts downplayed the extent of the Chinese incursions.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Datta |first=Saikat |date=11 July 2020 |title=What a tangled web New India's defence analysts weaved around Chinese incursions |url=https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/07/11/what-a-tangled-web-new-indias-defence-analysts-weaved-around-chinese-incursions |access-date=23 July 2020 |website=Newslaundry |language=en}}</ref> However following the 15 June clash at Galwan nearly all mainstream newspapers carried front-page stories as well as multi-page stories of the Galwan incident.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Adil |first=Ahmad |date=17 June 2020 |title=Indian, Chinese newspapers report India-China clashes |publisher=Anadolu Agency |url=https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/indian-chinese-newspapers-report-india-china-clashes/1880326 |access-date=21 June 2020}}</ref> Following the clash, ''[[Times Now]]'' published a list that it said contained the names of the Chinese soldiers who were killed in the clash but cautioned that the information "could be a fake forward"; multiple sources subsequently said that it was fake news.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Chaudhuri |first=Pooja |date=18 June 2020 |title=Times Now Used Fake WhatsApp Forward With Names of '30 Dead Chinese Soldiers' |url=https://thewire.in/media/times-now-used-fake-whatsapp-forward-with-names-of-30-dead-chinese-soldiers |access-date=24 June 2020 |website=The Wire}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Chaudhuri |first=Pooja |date=17 June 2020 |title=Times Now falls for fake WhatsApp forward listing names of 30 dead Chinese soldiers |url=https://www.altnews.in/times-now-falls-for-fake-whatsapp-forward-listing-names-of-30-dead-chinese-soldiers/ |access-date=24 June 2020 |website=Alt News}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Pooja Chaudhuri |first=AltNews in |title=Ladakh clash: Times Now falls for fake WhatsApp list naming 30 dead Chinese soldiers |url=https://scroll.in/article/965016/ladakh-clash-times-now-falls-for-fake-whatsapp-list-naming-30-dead-chinese-soldiers |access-date=24 June 2020 |website=Scroll.in}}</ref> Another list reported by Indian media that was said to also show Chinese soldiers who were killed in action was described by Chinese spokesperson [[Zhao Lijian]] as fake news.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Patranobis |first=Sutirtho |date=23 June 2020 |title='For sure it's fake news': China official on losing 40 soldiers in Ladakh |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/for-sure-it-s-fake-news-china-official-on-losing-40-soldiers-in-ladakh/story-Eb6RZa3HSFq0yAFInJx79O.html |access-date=25 June 2020 |website=Hindustan Times}}</ref> 

Ahead of the commanders' meeting on 6 June, disinformation campaigns were reportedly run by Chinese state-controlled media as well as corporations. The Chinese broadcasters showed military manoeuvres along the border, reportedly designed to frighten India.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Griffiths |first=James |date=9 June 2020 |title=India and China's border spat is turning into an all-out media war |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/asia/india-china-ladakh-border-media-intl-hnk/index.html |access-date=21 June 2020 |publisher=CNN}}</ref> Following the Galwan clash, international coverage in ''[[The New York Times]]''<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Gettleman |first1=Jeffrey |last2=Kumar |first2=Hari |last3=Yasir |first3=Sameer |date=16 June 2020 |title=Worst Clash in Decades on Disputed India-China Border Kills 20 Indian Troops |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/16/world/asia/indian-china-border-clash.html |access-date=27 June 2020 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> and ''[[The Guardian]]'' commented on the "nationalistic" character of the leaders of both countries and the "dangers posed by [[expansionist nationalism]]".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Borger |first=Julian |date=17 June 2020 |title=Himalayan flashpoint could spiral out of control as India and China face off |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/16/himalayan-flashpoint-could-spiral-out-of-control-as-india-and-china-face-off |access-date=27 June 2020 |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> The ''BBC'' described the situation in Galwan as "an extraordinary escalation with rocks and clubs".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Biswas |first=Soutik |date=16 June 2020 |title=An extraordinary escalation 'using rocks and clubs' |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53071913 |access-date=27 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Chatterjee |first=Sanchari |date=17 June 2020 |title=Two nuclear-armed states with chequered past clash: How foreign media reacted to India-China faceoff |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/how-foreign-media-reacted-on-india-china-faceoff-in-ladakh-1689818-2020-06-17 |access-date=21 June 2020 |website=India Today}}</ref>

=== Social media ===
There was a large extent of fake news in relation to border events from both Indian and Chinese handles.<ref name="Ranjan-2020">{{Cite web |last=Ranjan |first=Rajiv |date=23 June 2020 |title=In social media battle against India, Chinese users deploy memes from Pakistani Twitterverse |url=https://scroll.in/article/965378/in-social-media-battle-against-india-chinese-users-borrow-memes-from-pakistani-twitterverse |access-date=23 July 2020 |website=Scroll.in |language=en-US}}</ref> In the social media space, Chinese users used Pakistani memes against India.<ref name="Ranjan-2020" /> It was reported that Indian users had difficulty in understanding Chinese language memes meant to attack India.<ref name="Ranjan-2020" /> A Taiwanese image of [[Rama]] slaying a dragon was viral in the Indian social media sphere.<ref name="Ranjan-2020" /> [[TikTok]] was reported to have given "[[Shadow banning|shadow bans]]" to videos related to the border tension. Statements from India were removed from Chinese social media companies such as [[Weibo (company)|Weibo]] and [[WeChat]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=21 June 2020 |title=India-China stand-off: China social media companies black out India version |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-china-stand-off-china-social-media-companies-black-out-india-version/articleshow/76490608.cms |access-date=21 June 2020 |website=The Times of India}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Cook |first=Sarah |date=19 June 2020 |title=As China's global media influence grows, so does the pushback |url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/06/19/commentary/world-commentary/chinas-global-media-influence-grows-pushback/ |access-date=21 June 2020 |website=Japan Times}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Banerjee |first=Chandrima |date=6 June 2020 |title=Does TikTok censor content that's critical of China? |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/does-tiktok-censor-content-thats-critical-of-china/articleshow/76228715.cms |access-date=21 June 2020 |website=The Times of India}}</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Chinese salami slicing strategy]]
*[[Doklam]]
*[[Nathu La and Cho La clashes|1967 Nathu La and Cho La clashes]]
*[[Sino-Indian War|1962 Sino Indian War]]
*[[1987 Sino-Indian skirmish]]
*[[2017 China–India border standoff]]
*[[Timeline of 2020 China–India border standoff]]

== Notes ==
{{notelist}}

== References ==

=== Citations ===
{{reflist}}

=== Bibliography ===
{{refbegin}}
* {{Cite book |last=Deepak |first=B. R. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_fsOEAAAQBAJ |title=India and China: Beyond the Binary of Friendship and Enmity |date=December 2020 |publisher=Springer |isbn=9789811595004 |chapter=Chapter 4: Cooperation and Conflict in India-China Relations: A Crisis of Confidence Building. 4.4.2: June 15 Galwan Incident |ref={{sfnref|Deepak, Chapter 4.4.2|2020}} |author-link=B. R. Deepak}}
{{refend}}

== Further reading ==
=== Books ===

* {{Cite book |last=Subramaniam |first=Air Vice Marshal (Retd.) Arjun |title=Full Spectrum: India's Wars, 1972–2020 |date=8 October 2020 |publisher=Harper Collins |isbn=9789353578060 |location=India |pages=451–471 |chapter=20 |ref=none}}
* {{Cite book |last=Singh |first=Zorawar Daulet |title=Powershift: India-China Relations in a Multipolar World |date=December 2020 |publisher=Pan Macmillan |isbn=9789389109733 |chapter=Part 1: Border Dispute. Section 5. A 'New Normal': Ladakh 2020 and After}}
* {{Cite book |last=Singh |first=Deepti |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zE8tEAAAQBAJ |title=June 2020 – Road to Galwan – From Where It Began |date=2021 |publisher=Notion Press |isbn=978-1-63781-657-8 |language=en}}

=== Journals ===

* {{Cite journal |last1=Hu Shisheng |last2=Wang Jue |date=28 October 2020 |title=The Behavioral Logic behind India's Tough Foreign Policy toward China |url=http://www.cicir.ac.cn/NEW/en-us/opinion.html?id=3e414d74-2a98-46cf-bb77-c86b3ff9a7ec |journal=Contemporary International Relations 2020 No.5 |publisher=[[China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations]] |pages=37–65 |ref=none}}
* {{Cite journal |last=Karackattu |first=Joe Thomas |year=2020 |title=The corrosive compromise of the Sino-Indian border management framework: from Doklam to Galwan |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03068374.2020.1804726 |journal=[[Asian Affairs]] |language=en |volume=51 |issue=3 |pages=590–604 |doi=10.1080/03068374.2020.1804726 |issn=0306-8374 |ref=none |s2cid=222093756}}

=== Reports ===

* {{Cite report |url=http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/External%20Affairs/16_External_Affairs_22.pdf |title=Sino-India relations including Doklam, Situation and Cooperation in International Organizations (2017–18) |publisher=Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India |ref=none}}
* {{Cite magazine |last=Ahuja |first=Anil |date=19 October 2020 |title=Lessons from Ladakh and the Way Forward |url=https://www.delhipolicygroup.org/uploads_dpg/publication_file/lessons-from-ladakh-and-the-way-forward-2086.pdf |magazine=Delhi Policy Group |volume=V |issue=38}}
*{{Citation |last=Gokhale |first=Vijay |title=The Road from Galwan: The Future of India-China Relations |date=10 March 2021 |url=https://carnegieindia.org/2021/03/10/road-from-galwan-future-of-india-china-relations-pub-84019 |publisher=Carnegie India, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace |author-link=Vijay Keshav Gokhale}}

=== News articles ===
* {{Cite web |last=Brands |first=Hal |author-link=Hal Brands |date=2 June 2020 |title=China's border invasion will push India toward the U.S. |url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/06/02/commentary/world-commentary/chinas-border-invasion-will-push-india-toward-u-s/ |website=Japan Times |ref=none |agency=Bloomberg}}
* {{Cite web |last=Lt Gen [[Harcharanjit Singh Panag|HS Panag]] (Retd) |date=28 May 2020 |title=China believes India wants Aksai Chin back. PLA has likely secured 40–60 sq km in Ladakh |url=https://theprint.in/opinion/china-believes-india-wants-aksai-chin-back-thats-why-it-has-crossed-lac-in-ladakh/430899/ |website=The Print |ref=none}}
* {{Cite web |date=19 June 2020 |title=Galwan Valley: The soldiers killed in the India-China border clash |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53090518 |publisher=BBC |ref=none}}
* {{Cite web |last=Roy Choudhury |first=Saheli |date=18 June 2020 |title=India is under 'tremendous' pressure to respond to China, academic says |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/18/india-is-under-tremendous-pressure-to-respond-to-china-academic-says.html |publisher=CNBC |ref=none}}
* {{Cite web |last1=Stephen Hutcheon |last2=Mark Doman |last3=Alex Palmer |date=10 July 2020 |title=High stakes in a Himalayan hotspot |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-10/high-stakes-in-china-india-himalayan-border-hotspot/12417248?nw=0 |publisher=ABC News (Australia) |ref=none}}
* {{Cite web |last=Sudha Ramachandran |date=28 September 2020 |title=India's "Tibet Card" in the Stand-Off with China |url=https://jamestown.org/program/indias-tibet-card-in-the-stand-off-with-china-more-provocative-than-productive/ |publisher=The Jamestown Foundation |ref=none}}
* {{Cite web |last=Yun Sun |date=19 June 2020 |title=China's Strategic Assessment of the Ladakh Clash |url=https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/chinas-strategic-assessment-of-the-ladakh-clash/ |publisher=War on the Rocks |ref=none}}
* {{Cite news |last=Verma |first=Pranshu |date=3 October 2020 |title=In Wake of Recent India-China Conflict, U.S. Sees Opportunity |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/03/world/asia/india-china-trump.html |url-status=live |ref=none}}

==External links==
* 

{{China–India relations}}
{{Military of China}}
{{Military of India}}
{{PRC conflicts}}
{{Territorial disputes in East, South, and Southeast Asia}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:China-India skirmishes 2020}}
[[Category:2020 in India]]
[[Category:2020 in China]]
[[Category:2021 in China]]
[[Category:2021 in India]]
[[Category:May 2020 events in China]]
[[Category:June 2020 events in China]]
[[Category:Conflicts in 2020]]
[[Category:Conflicts in 2021]]
[[Category:Battles in 2020]]
[[Category:Battles in 2021]]
[[Category:Territorial disputes of China|2020 China-India skirmishes ]]
[[Category:Territorial disputes of India|2020 China-India skirmishes ]]
[[Category:China–India military relations|2020 skirmishes ]]