Never recognised UT of Ladakh, says China on India’s tit-for-tat naming drive

India announced standard names for 28 places and geographic features in Ladakh. The move was made by the Union home ministry in consultation with the Union Territory of Ladakh. It forms part of India’s response to China’s repeated naming of locations in areas claimed by India. The announcement therefore has both administrative and diplomatic importance.

The list covers several kinds of terrain. It includes 10 peaks, two passes, three mountains, seven land areas, two glaciers, two water bodies, a valley and a river. India said these names were placed on the official Survey of India map of the Union Territory of Ladakh.

The ministry said the formal identification would help people recognise the locations accurately and improve public awareness. China rejected the announcement as “illegal and invalid.” It also said it has never recognised Ladakh as a Union Territory and continues to claim the western section of the border.

Standard place names are formal names used consistently for geographic locations and features. They distinguish peaks, passes, rivers, valleys and other places on an official map. In this case, India created standard names for 28 locations in Ladakh through the Union home ministry, working with the Union Territory administration.

The key mechanism is official cartographic recognition. The names are recorded on the Survey of India map, which India identifies as its official map for Ladakh. The list includes 10 peaks, two passes, three mountains, seven land areas, two glaciers, two water bodies, a valley and a river.

India said this process would facilitate accurate recognition and better public awareness. It does not, by itself, settle the border dispute or change control on the ground. China nevertheless called the move illegal and invalid, showing that official naming also carries diplomatic meaning in contested territory.

India’s list contained eight types of geographic features. Together, they show that the announcement covered a broad landscape rather than only settlements or border posts. The categories also give the list administrative value because different kinds of places can be identified consistently on official maps.

The breakdown was specific: 10 peaks, two passes, three mountains, seven land areas, two glaciers, two water bodies, one valley and one river. These 28 entries were identified through standard place and feature names on the official Survey of India map of the Union Territory of Ladakh.

India said the purpose was accurate recognition and better public awareness. The announcement also responded to China’s earlier naming exercises in Arunachal Pradesh. Although such names do not automatically change territorial control, their use in official maps can reinforce each country’s stated position and make the dispute more visible.

China’s position is that India’s Union Territory of Ladakh lacks legitimacy because India created it unilaterally. Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said China has never recognised the “so-called” Union Territory. Beijing therefore rejects India’s official naming of locations within it.

China links the naming dispute to its broader territorial claim. Mao said the western section of the China–India border has always belonged to China. On that basis, China argues that India cannot establish valid official names for places in territory Beijing considers Chinese. India’s announcement followed China’s own naming exercises in areas claimed by India.

The disagreement reflects a deeper border dispute, not simply a map-labeling issue. India created Ladakh as a Union Territory in 2019 after ending Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and reorganising the former state. China says the change was illegal; India has not accepted China’s territorial claims.

The Line of Actual Control is the de facto line separating the areas controlled by India and China in their disputed border regions. It is not the same as a mutually agreed international boundary. Because the two countries disagree about parts of the line, patrols, maps and official statements can become sources of tension.

The article says a military standoff began along the LAC in 2020. It lasted more than four years and involved a prolonged breakdown in relations. The standoff followed years of disagreement over the border and made the dispute a central issue in bilateral ties.

India and China are now trying to normalise relations. They have held talks aimed at resolving the long-standing border dispute. The naming dispute shows that tensions remain, even while diplomatic engagement continues. Official names may strengthen each side’s public position, but they do not by themselves settle the LAC or determine sovereignty.

Competing names matter because maps and official records shape how governments, institutions and the public understand disputed places. A standard name can make a location easier to identify, support consistent administration and signal that a country regards the place as part of its territory. Naming is therefore practical as well as political.

India said its 28 Ladakh names would improve accurate recognition and public awareness. China has used similar naming exercises for dozens of locations in Arunachal Pradesh, including towns, rivers and geographic features. India has argued that those actions cannot change reality. The same principle applies to India’s own list: a name does not itself transfer control.

Diplomatically, rival names can provoke official protests and reinforce competing territorial narratives. China called India’s move “illegal and invalid.” The two countries are holding talks while trying to normalise relations after the LAC standoff, so naming disputes could complicate that process even without changing the ground situation.

Under international law and state practice, countries establish or defend sovereignty through valid treaties, settled boundaries, lawful administration and sustained exercise of governmental authority. They may also rely on historical title, agreements, official records and conduct accepted by other states. No single map label normally decides a disputed border.

Countries contest sovereignty by rejecting another state’s acts, issuing diplomatic protests, publishing their own maps, administering territory and seeking negotiations or legal settlement. India’s official names for 28 Ladakh features and China’s repeated naming of places in Arunachal Pradesh are examples of state practice and political signaling. Each side uses official records to express its territorial position.

Names can strengthen public administration and support a claim, but they do not automatically transfer sovereignty. In a serious dispute, the decisive issues remain applicable agreements, evidence of control and accepted legal processes. India and China are using talks to address their long-standing border dispute, while their competing claims remain unresolved.