What is McMahon Line? Inside the India-China border dispute and ‘Ganges Line’ claim

As fresh tensions resurface over the India-China boundary dispute, remarks by Chinese commentator and policy analyst Victor Zhikai Gao have once again pushed the century-old McMahon Line into the spotlight.  

During a recent interview, Gao questioned the legitimacy of the McMahon Line — the boundary that India recognises as its eastern border with China — and controversially suggested that China could draw a hypothetical “Victor Gao Line” along the Ganges river in response to India’s territorial claims.  

MUST READ | ‘Draw border along the Ganges’: Chinese analyst calls India’s McMahon Line claim ‘illegal’

“If the Indians want to use the illegal McMahon Line as the border between China and India, why couldn’t we use the Victor Gao Line along the Ganges as the border?” Gao said, reiterating Beijing’s long-standing position that the boundary was imposed during British colonial rule and was never accepted by China.  

The remarks come amid renewed friction over China’s repeated renaming of places inside the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which Beijing refers to as “Zangnan” or “South Tibet.”  

What is the McMahon Line?  

The McMahon Line is a boundary drawn in 1914 during the Simla Convention between British India and Tibet. It was named after British diplomat Sir Henry McMahon, who negotiated the agreement.  

The line stretches roughly 890 km along the eastern Himalayas and today forms the basis of India’s border with China in the eastern sector, particularly around Arunachal Pradesh.

DON'T MISS | '20 years behind...': Chinese official dismisses India, says 'it can never make all weapons by itself' 

India considers the McMahon Line to be a legally valid international boundary inherited after independence. China, however, rejects it entirely, arguing that Tibet did not possess the authority to independently sign international treaties at the time.  

The disagreement over the boundary became one of the major causes of the 1962 India-China war and continues to remain a core source of friction between the two Asian powers.  

India vs China: Competing territorial claims  

India maintains that Arunachal Pradesh is an integral and inalienable part of the country. The state has elected governments, Indian administrative control, and a long-standing civilian population integrated into India’s political framework.  

China, however, claims nearly the entire state — around 90,000 sq km — arguing that the region historically belonged to Tibet and therefore forms part of China. Beijing refers to the area as “South Xizang” or “South Tibet.”  

DO CHECKOUT | From HQ-9 to PL-15: These Chinese weapons failed in front of India during Operation Sindoor

While the western sector of the India-China boundary dispute focuses on Aksai Chin, the eastern sector revolves around Arunachal Pradesh, especially the strategically and religiously significant Tawang region.  

India has consistently rejected Chinese territorial assertions, stating that boundary disputes cannot be resolved through “inventive naming” or unilateral claims.  

China’s repeated renaming exercise  

In recent years, Beijing has repeatedly released “standardised” Chinese names for places located inside Arunachal Pradesh. The latest round came in May 2025, when China announced Chinese names for 27 locations, including mountains, rivers, residential areas, and mountain passes.  

This marked the fifth such renaming exercise by China since 2017. Previous lists were issued in 2017, 2021, 2023, and 2024.  

India strongly rejected the move, with the Ministry of External Affairs calling the exercise “vain and preposterous.” MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said such attempts would not alter the “undeniable reality” that Arunachal Pradesh “was, is, and will always remain an integral and inalienable part of India.”  

Chinese officials, meanwhile, defended the renaming campaign as an exercise of “sovereign rights” over what Beijing considers its territory.  

Victor Gao’s controversial border analogy  

Against this backdrop, Gao’s recent remarks have attracted attention because of their unusually provocative framing.  

During the interview, he argued that if India continues to rely on the McMahon Line, China could similarly draw an arbitrary line along the Ganges river and claim everything north of it. Social media users supporting Gao have even referred to the proposal as the “Victor Gao Line.”  

Gao also claimed that India should eventually “surrender” what he called “South Xizang” back to China, asserting that Beijing would “never accept” the McMahon Line.  

While Gao does not hold an official government position, he is a prominent Chinese commentator frequently seen articulating nationalist and strategic viewpoints aligned with Beijing’s broader narratives.  

Despite several rounds of military and diplomatic talks after the 2020 Galwan Valley clashes, the India-China border dispute remains unresolved. Both countries continue to maintain heavy troop deployments along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), while diplomatic engagement has focused largely on preventing escalation and restoring stability.