China Opposes India's Move To Name 28 Strategic Locations In Ladakh, Calls It ‘Illegal And Invalid’

· Free Press Journal

China on Tuesday strongly opposed India’s decision to assign standardised names to 28 strategic locations and geographical features in Ladakh, claiming that the areas belong to it. Beijing described the move as “illegal and invalid” and maintained that it would not change China’s position on the disputed boundary.

The reaction came after India’s Ministry of Home Affairs announced standardised names for 28 locations in Ladakh, including key border friction points along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). The move is aimed at improving official maps, ensuring accurate identification of locations and increasing public awareness of the sensitive border region.

Visit newsbetting.cv for more information.

China rejects India’s decision

Addressing a media briefing in Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said, “China has never recognised the so-called ‘Union Territory of Ladakh’ unilaterally and illegally established by India.”

She added that Beijing “firmly opposes India’s announcement of so-called standard names”.

Mao further claimed that the decision would not affect China’s territorial claims in the region.

“The move is illegal and invalid and cannot change the fact that the relevant areas in the western sector of the China-India boundary have always belonged to China,” she said.

China’s strong response highlights how sensitive the boundary issue remains, with even the naming of geographical locations drawing objections from Beijing.

India identifies key border locations

On October 2, India formally identified 28 strategic locations and geographical features in Ladakh on its official map. These include Gogra and Hot Spring, which have been important friction points between Indian and Chinese troops along the LAC.

The government took the decision in consultation with the Ladakh administration. The exercise is intended to streamline official mapping, make it easier to identify geographical features accurately and improve public understanding of the border region, PTI reports.

The inclusion of Gogra and Hot Spring is particularly significant because both locations were at the centre of tensions during the 2020 military standoff. They are also important for Indian patrolling activities along the LAC.

Mother Works At Ladakh Petrol Pump With Baby Strapped To Her Back, Viral Video Draws Praise - WATCH

2020 border standoff in focus

The eastern Ladakh border standoff began on May 5, 2020, following a violent clash between Indian and Chinese troops in the Pangong Lake area.

The confrontation led to prolonged tensions along the border, with both countries beginning the disengagement process in 2022.

Against this backdrop, India’s decision to standardise the names of strategic locations carries significance beyond routine map updates. China’s objection shows that disagreements over the boundary continue to influence relations between the two countries.

Which locations has India named?

Apart from Gogra and Hot Spring, the locations identified by India include Alisha Giri, a high-altitude peak, Brangsa, Chapchingal Pass, Kanishka Peak, Karun Pir mountain, Kuksel, Martand Giri, Parpik glacier, Skamri Glacier, Shachmirik Pass, Shkorga Valley, Zorawar Peak, Dehra Compass and Drak Karpo.

Also Watch:

The list also includes Jolmori, Kumarayana Point, Panglung, Rinchen Zangpo, Sakyasri Giri, Guru Rinpoche, Shamal Lungpa, Yangpa River, Marpa Lotsava Ri, Milarepa Kangri, Shiva Ri and Maheshwara Ri.

Shamal Lungpa was used as a patrol and staging route in the 1950s.

While India has presented the naming exercise as a step towards improving geographical identification and official mapping, China has challenged its validity on territorial grounds. The disagreement once again brings attention to the unresolved boundary dispute in the western sector.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/

Read full story at source