India-China Border Dispute: MEA Lacks Exact Data, RTI Reveals

India-China Border Dispute: RTI Exposes Gaps in Border Records

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has stated it holds “no further information” on the precise year-wise extent of Chinese occupation of Indian territory. The ministry was responding to aRight to Information (RTI) query filed by Ajay Kumar, a Bengaluru-based lawyer and RTI activist. 

Kumar lodged his RTI with the MEA on February 6, 2025, requesting specific data on the scale of Indian land under Chinese control across multiple dates. To understand the extent of land occupied by China amid the India-China standoff, Kumar’s query aimed to map the shifting contours of India’s sovereign territory—from the 1962 Sino-Indian War to the present day. 

Kumar’s RTI application demanded specifics on the “total amount of Sovereign Indian Territory under military occupation or otherwise by the People’s Republic of China” across nine critical junctures from the 1962 Sino-Indian War to today. The timeline includes October 19, 1962 (eve of the India-China conflict), November 21, 1962 (war’s end), May 4, 2020 (start of tensions leading to the Galwan Valley clash), and annual markers from January 21, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, culminating with the present day. These dates, tied to historic flashpoints and recent Line of Actual Control (LAC) friction

India-China Border Dispute: RTI Exposes Gaps in Border Records

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has stated it holds “no further information” on the precise year-wise extent of Chinese occupation of Indian territory. The ministry was responding to aRight to Information (RTI) query filed by Ajay Kumar, a Bengaluru-based lawyer and RTI activist. 

Kumar lodged his RTI with the MEA on February 6, 2025, requesting specific data on the scale of Indian land under Chinese control across multiple dates. To understand the extent of land occupied by China amid the India-China standoff, Kumar’s query aimed to map the shifting contours of India’s sovereign territory—from the 1962 Sino-Indian War to the present day. 

Kumar’s RTI application demanded specifics on the “total amount of Sovereign Indian Territory under military occupation or otherwise by the People’s Republic of China” across nine critical junctures from the 1962 Sino-Indian War to today. The timeline includes October 19, 1962 (eve of the India-China conflict), November 21, 1962 (war’s end), May 4, 2020 (start of tensions leading to the Galwan Valley clash), and annual markers from January 21, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, culminating with the present day. These dates, tied to historic flashpoints and recent Line of Actual Control (LAC) frictions, aim to assess whether India has ceded or reclaimed territory in the six-decade India-China border dispute. 

However, the MEA’s response to the RTI dated February 27, 2025, by Dr. Vikram Krisnamoorthy, Deputy Secretary (China) and Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), has drawn scrutiny for its lack of detail. Dr. Krisnamoorthy, confirming receipt of Kumar’s India-China focused query, lumped all nine questions together, offering no fresh insights into the contentious border issue.

Rather than providing precise figures, he pointed Kumar to two existing Lok Sabha replies. The first, dated February 4, 2022, notes China’s illegal hold over roughly 38,000 square kilometers of Indian territory in Ladakh for six decades. The second, from March 11, 2020, highlights the India-China boundary dispute, with China claiming about 90,000 square kilometers in Arunachal Pradesh’s Eastern sector, alongside the 38,000 square kilometers occupied in Ladakh.

However, the MEA provides no information on the exact occupation by the Chinese of Indian territories since 1962, as requested by the RTI applicant. Moreover, the CPIO asserted that he “is not in possession of any further information on these.” He also states that the CPIO is “under obligation to provide an applicant only that information which exists in records.”

The vague response from the MEA has far-reaching implications. Kumar’s nine queries pinpointed exact dates, seeking a timeline of territorial control. The response, however, cited Lok Sabha answers from 2020 and 2022, offering static figures (38,000 sq. km.) of Chinese occupation without addressing changes over time. By claiming no further records exist, does it mean that the government has no information of the exact control of Indian land by the Chinese? Are these records not maintained? If such data isn’t maintained, it’s a glaring oversight for a ministry handling foreign affairs, if it exists elsewhere (e.g., Ministry of Defence), the RTI could have been transferred under Section 6(3) of the Act.

The Probe spoke to Ajay Kumar, who revealed he has also sent a separate RTI to the Ministry of Defence and is awaiting a response from them. “The MEA’s vague response signals a reluctance to disclose detailed, time-specific information about Chinese occupation. If the MEA cannot quantify occupation over time, it suggests a weak grasp of the LAC’s status—potentially emboldening China, which has aggressively built infrastructure in disputed areas. Without updated data, lawmakers and citizens cannot assess whether diplomatic or military efforts have reclaimed territory or ceded more ground, hampering informed policy debates. Vagueness may signal to adversaries and allies alike that India lacks precise control over its borders, weakening its diplomatic stance in negotiations with China.”

Kumar adds: “The problem is that we don’t know where India’s current operational border is with China. There is no border treaty and there is no agreed line. There is the Line of Actual Control, but the LAC only exists in certain places. We don’t know whether the LAC has changed. It’s a very simple question: what has been the extent of Chinese occupation over time? Have we been able to take back territories in some sectors, or have we lost territory? Who holds the information? If not the MEA, does the Ministry of Defence or intelligence agencies have the answers, and why wasn’t the RTI redirected? Are losses being concealed? Is the government hiding post-Galwan encroachments to avoid political backlash?”

The India-China border dispute has long been a contentious issue, rooted in historical disagreements over territorial claims and intensified by periodic military confrontations. The border dispute has seen significant escalation since 2020, notably the Galwan Valley clash, which resulted in casualties and heightened tensions.

The RTI response exemplifies a recurring challenge in India’s governance: the tension between national security and transparency. While sensitive military details may justifiably be withheld under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act (which protects information affecting sovereignty and security), the MEA neither invokes this exemption nor justifies its refusal to provide specifics in the case of Kumar’s RTI query. With no clear data on Chinese occupation over time, the government’s silence raises doubts about transparency and control along the LAC, deepening public concern over a critical national security issue.