Bilateral Territorial Disputes in South Asia: Historical Legacies and Modern Tensions

When the British left the Indian subcontinent in 1947, they did not just hand over power. They also left behind a tangle of half-drawn, contested, and ambiguous borders that continue to shape conflict across South Asia today. Many of the region’s most dangerous flashpoints, from the icy heights of the Himalayas to the marshlands of the Arabian Sea, can be traced back to lines drawn on maps by colonial officials who often had little understanding of the lands and people they were dividing. These bilateral territorial disputes are not relics of the past. They actively drive military standoffs, diplomatic crises, and the strategic calculations of the region’s nuclear powers.

The colonial roots of South Asia’s borders
The India-China dispute and the McMahon Line
From the 1962 war to the Line of Actual Control
The India-Pakistan disputes and the partition legacy
Jammu and Kashmir
Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek
The Durand Line and the Pashtun question
India’s disputes with Nepal and Bangladesh
Kalapani and the India-Nepal dispute
India-Bangladesh and a model for resolution
Why these disputes endure

The colonial roots of South Asia’s borders

To understand why South Asia remains so prone to territorial conflict, you have to look at how its borders were created. Most were the product of British imperial strategy rather than mutual agreement between equal states. Scholars argue that the persistence of these colonial-era lines has embedded historical grievances and strategic insecurities deep within the regional order, keeping old wounds open decades after independence.

The most infamous example is the work of Sir Cyril Radcliffe. A British barrister who had never visited India and arrived just weeks before partition, he was tasked with dividing British India into two nations. The resulting Radcliffe Line split villages, communities, and provinces in ways that ignored ground realities. This hasty demarcation created the foundation for one of the world’s most enduring rivalries between India and Pakistan.

Some commentators even suggest that these never-ending boundary conflicts were, intentionally or not, a feature of colonial divide-and-rule strategy. Whatever the intent, the consequences are clear. Three colonial lines in particular, the Radcliffe, the Durand, and the McMahon, sit at the heart of the region’s security tensions.

The India-China dispute and the McMahon Line

The boundary between India and China is one of the longest unsettled borders in the world. Its eastern sector is defined by the McMahon Line, drawn in 1914 during the Simla Convention between British India and Tibet. Named after the chief British negotiator, Sir Henry McMahon, the line runs along the crest of the Himalayas from the eastern border of Bhutan to the bend of the Brahmaputra River.

The core of the problem is that China never accepted this line. Beijing argues that Tibet was not a sovereign state and therefore had no authority to sign away territory, so it rejects the McMahon Line as illegitimate. China claims the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh, which it calls “Zangnan” or South Tibet.

From the 1962 war to the Line of Actual Control

These disagreements were not merely academic. Frequent skirmishes along the border, combined with India’s “Forward Policy” of establishing posts in contested areas, contributed to the Sino-Indian War of 1962. Chinese troops crossed the McMahon Line in the east and pushed into Aksai Chin in the west before declaring a unilateral ceasefire and withdrawing.

After the war, the de facto boundary came to be known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC). This is not a formally agreed border but a notional line separating the territory each side controls. The two countries cannot even agree on its length. India considers the LAC to be roughly 3,488 kilometres long, while China describes it differently, treating it as a series of disconnected points rather than a continuous line. The dispute spans three sectors, with Aksai Chin in the west and Arunachal Pradesh in the east being the largest contested zones.

Even though there has been no full-scale war since 1962, the LAC remains volatile. Clashes near Pangong Lake and in the Galwan Valley in recent years are reminders that an undemarcated boundary can flare into violence at any moment.

The India-Pakistan disputes and the partition legacy

No bilateral relationship in South Asia has been shaped by territory as much as India and Pakistan. Their disputes flow directly from the rushed partition of 1947, which left ambiguously drawn boundaries and princely states with uncertain futures.

Jammu and Kashmir

Kashmir is the central dispute between the two nations. At partition, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh, faced an invasion by tribal militias from Pakistan. The Maharaja then signed the Instrument of Accession to India in October 1947, triggering the first war between the two countries. India considers the entire former princely state its integral territory, while Pakistan disputes the accession and frames Kashmir as the unfinished agenda of partition.

The territory is now divided by the Line of Control (LoC), a military boundary established after the 1947-48 war and reaffirmed under the 1972 Simla Agreement. The LoC has been the site of infiltration attempts, artillery exchanges, and sniper fire for decades. Three of the four major India-Pakistan wars have been directly tied to Kashmir, showing just how central the dispute is to their relationship.

Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek

Two lesser-known but persistent disputes also strain relations. The Siachen Glacier, located at over 5,400 metres, is often called the world’s highest battlefield. The conflict stems from ambiguous wording in the 1972 Simla Agreement, which described the boundary as running “thence north to the glaciers.” Both sides interpreted this phrase differently. In 1984, India launched Operation Meghdoot to occupy key positions on the glacier, and troops have remained deployed in brutal conditions ever since.

Further south lies Sir Creek, a 96-kilometre tidal estuary in the Rann of Kutch marshlands separating Gujarat from Pakistan’s Sindh province. The disagreement rests on the interpretation of a 1914 boundary resolution. Pakistan claims the boundary follows the eastern bank of the creek, while India argues for a mid-channel line. Because the land boundary here is unsettled, the maritime boundary in the Arabian Sea also remains undemarcated, raising the stakes over fishing rights and offshore resources.

The Durand Line and the Pashtun question

Not all of South Asia’s territorial disputes involve India directly. The Durand Line, drawn in 1893 between Sir Mortimer Durand and Afghan ruler Amir Abdur Rahman Khan, divides Afghanistan and present-day Pakistan. It was originally framed as a way to define spheres of influence during the imperial rivalry between Britain and Russia known as the “Great Game.”

The problem is that the line cut straight through the homeland of the Pashtun people. Successive Afghan governments have refused to recognise it as a legitimate international boundary since 1947, partly because the agreement’s wording was ambiguous about whether it was meant to be a permanent border at all. Pakistan, by contrast, maintains that it legally inherited the line as its recognised frontier.

This unresolved status has real consequences. Because Pashtuns ended up divided, with a large population now under Pakistani rule, there have been recurring demands for an independent “Pashtunistan.” The frontier remains a flashpoint for cross-border militancy and shelling, complicating regional stability.

India’s disputes with Nepal and Bangladesh

Territorial friction in South Asia extends well beyond the headline rivalries. India shares contested ground with smaller neighbours too, though these disputes have followed very different paths.

Kalapani and the India-Nepal dispute

The India-Nepal boundary traces back to the Treaty of Sugauli of 1816, signed between British India and the Kingdom of Nepal, which set the Mahakali (Kali) River as the boundary. The trouble is that both sides disagree about which tributary is the true source of the river. This ambiguity feeds the dispute over Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura, a roughly 400-square-kilometre area at the tri-junction of India, Nepal, and China.

The dispute, long described as “frozen,” reignited sharply in recent years. In 2019, India issued a new political map including the three areas, and in 2020 it inaugurated a road through the Lipulekh pass to support the Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage route. Nepal responded by publishing its own official map claiming the territories. The areas have been under Indian control for decades, and the standoff pushed bilateral relations to a low point.

India-Bangladesh and a model for resolution

The India-Bangladesh boundary stands out as a rare success story. For decades, the border was complicated by enclaves, small pockets of one country’s territory completely surrounded by the other. There were 111 Indian enclaves inside Bangladesh and 51 Bangladeshi enclaves inside India, leaving thousands of residents effectively stateless.

This tangle was finally resolved through the Land Boundary Agreement of 2015. India amended its Constitution to enable the deal, and the two countries exchanged enclaves in phases, granting residents the choice of citizenship. As one analysis notes, Bangladesh actually gained more territory than India through the swap of adverse possessions. The peaceful resolution has since been floated as a possible template for settling the India-Nepal dispute, though the strategic sensitivity of areas like Kalapani makes that far harder.

Why these disputes endure

If most of these borders are colonial impositions, why do they persist so stubbornly? Part of the answer lies in what scholars call a “colonial mentality,” where states cling to inherited lines out of pragmatic considerations such as the need for stability and the recognition of de facto boundaries when no better alternative exists.

Three forces keep these disputes alive. First, historical grievances and nationalist narratives turn boundary lines into symbols of identity and sovereignty, making compromise politically costly. Second, strategic value matters enormously, as seen in India’s reluctance to give up the militarily important Kalapani region or the Siachen heights. Third, external influences from major powers shape outcomes, whether it was the United States and Britain backing India in 1962 or China’s growing assertiveness today.

The result is a region where lines drawn in colonial offices over a century ago continue to determine where soldiers stand guard, where diplomats argue, and where ordinary people live divided from their neighbours. Some disputes, like the one with Bangladesh, show that peaceful resolution is possible with political will. Others remain dangerously open, a reminder of how the past continues to shape the present.

What do you think? Given that the Land Boundary Agreement with Bangladesh successfully resolved a complex enclave problem, why do you think similar negotiated settlements have proven so difficult to achieve with Nepal, Pakistan, and China? And should colonial-era treaties signed without the consent of local populations still carry legal weight in defining modern national borders?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 5 / 5. Vote count: 1

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

The colonial roots of South Asia’s borders 🔗

The India-China dispute and the McMahon Line 🔗

From the 1962 war to the Line of Actual Control 🔗

The India-Pakistan disputes and the partition legacy 🔗

Jammu and Kashmir 🔗

Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek 🔗

The Durand Line and the Pashtun question 🔗

India’s disputes with Nepal and Bangladesh 🔗

Kalapani and the India-Nepal dispute 🔗

India-Bangladesh and a model for resolution 🔗

Why these disputes endure 🔗