National security is measured not by the volume of patriotic rhetoric but by a country’s ability to protect its territorial integrity, equip its armed forces and hold its adversaries accountable. The latest reports of continuing face-offs between Indian and Chinese personnel along the Arunachal Pradesh frontier have once again raised uncomfortable questions about Beijing’s intentions and New Delhi’s preparedness. The government must explain the situation with candour rather than allow uncertainty to deepen public anxiety.

On October 22, 2026, Shatrujeet Kapur, Director General of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), confirmed that confrontations with Chinese troops were continuing at several locations in Arunachal Pradesh. Reports have indicated that personnel of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) pitched tents on higher ground, approximately six to seven kilometres within India’s perception of the Line of Actual Control (LAC), near Maja in the Taksing circle of Upper Subansiri district. These developments reportedly date back to July. The distinction is crucial: the distance refers to India’s perception of the disputed LAC, not an internationally demarcated boundary. Nevertheless, the reported activity warrants serious scrutiny.

The situation is particularly concerning because the India-China frontier remains unsettled. The LAC stretches approximately 3,488 kilometres, according to the ITBP. Differences in the two countries’ perceptions of its alignment have repeatedly triggered confrontations. On October 24, defence sources described the Asaphila and Longju sectors as sensitive but said the ground situation remained stable, with no reported violent clashes. Claims that India has lost control of territory or that its military is incapable of fighting should therefore not be presented as established facts. Equally, official assurances cannot substitute for credible information about developments on the ground.

The experience of the Galwan Valley clash in June 2020 remains a stark reminder of the human cost of border miscalculations. Twenty Indian soldiers were killed in that confrontation, while China subsequently acknowledged four fatalities among its troops. The episode exposed the dangers of allowing strategic distrust to escalate into physical violence. Since then, India and China have pursued military and diplomatic engagements, including an agreement on disengagement at certain friction points in October 2024. Such arrangements are important, but they cannot eliminate the need for sustained vigilance.

More troubling are the questions surrounding military preparedness. Kapur has acknowledged that sections of the ITBP’s weapons inventory require modernisation and stressed the growing importance of drones, counter-drone systems and specialised high-altitude training. The force has also developed Shaurya commandos to strengthen its response to difficult border confrontations. These initiatives are welcome, but they must be backed by adequate funding, advanced surveillance, reliable communications, all-weather roads and timely procurement. China’s sustained investment in military infrastructure and technology demands a response based on capability, not complacency.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh owe Parliament and the public a clear account of the situation. The Ministry of External Affairs has said that disturbances occur when Chinese forces deviate from established patrolling patterns and that both sides continue to use diplomatic and military mechanisms to prevent misunderstandings. That is a necessary diplomatic position, but the government should clarify what measures are being taken to protect Indian patrol access and prevent further escalation.

Diplomacy is not weakness, nor is public scrutiny an act of disloyalty. The government must protect operational secrets while providing Parliament with meaningful information. National security cannot become a shield against legitimate questions, particularly when border communities and soldiers bear the consequences of strategic uncertainty.

India needs three things: a vigilant military, firm diplomacy and an accountable political leadership. The test of patriotism is not how loudly a government proclaims national pride, but how effectively it safeguards the nation’s interests. On a sensitive frontier, silence may preserve political convenience; it cannot, by itself, guarantee national security.