India’s balancing act: Managing border tensions with China and uncertainty with the US

India’s relations with China and the United States demand different kinds of balance. Along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the challenge is to hold ground while keeping military and diplomatic channels open. With Washington, it is to pursue trade and energy cooperation while preparing for shifts in US policy. In a conversation on Point Blank, Hindustan Times Executive Editor Shishir Gupta discussed these pressures with senior anchor Aayesha Varma, arguing that India’s approach rests on strategic autonomy and a willingness to engage without surrendering its position.

Shishir Gupta described the border situation as a contest between competing claims.Arunachal Pradesh: Tensions, but no immediate sign of escalation

The discussion began with remarks by the outgoing chief of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police, who had referred to face-offs at multiple points in Arunachal Pradesh in July. Gupta cautioned against treating a farewell-speech comment as a complete account of the situation. National security, he said, draws on information from military, paramilitary, intelligence and other government institutions; a public statement from one official may not capture the full picture.

Gupta described the border situation as a contest between competing claims, with India maintaining that Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of the country and China claiming the territory. Along the LAC, he said, patrols can enter areas each side considers its own, creating the risk of face-offs. He argued that such incidents do not, by themselves, mean one side has gained control or that a wider confrontation is imminent.

According to Gupta, Indian forces had taken countermeasures and established a position intended to provide leverage, while military and diplomatic talks continued at several levels. He said the matter remained unresolved, but that the two sides were holding their positions and there had been no clashes. On that basis, he assessed the likelihood of escalation as very low at the time of the interview.

That distinction matters: a standoff can be serious without immediately becoming a conflict. Gupta pointed to the long timelines involved in resolving border disputes, citing the 1986 Sumdorong Chu episode and the continuing efforts to address friction in eastern Ladakh after 2020. His message was that dialogue and a firm military posture can coexist - and that progress on the ground may take time.

Also Read: 'India, China continue using existing mechanisms to avoid LAC miscalculations': MEA after ITBP chief's remarks

Who ordered the patrols? Several explanations remain possible

Varma asked whether the Chinese patrol activity had Beijing’s approval or reflected the initiative of a local commander. Gupta said it was difficult to determine from the information available. He outlined several possibilities rather than presenting one as established fact.

One possibility, he suggested, was that local commanders might act more aggressively under pressure to demonstrate performance, particularly amid reported changes and personnel purges in China’s military leadership. Another was that instructions for more assertive patrolling had come from higher up the chain of command. He also pointed to China’s development of border villages and infrastructure, which he said could shape how both sides perceive activity along the frontier.

These were Gupta’s interpretations, not confirmed explanations for the reported face-offs. His broader point was that the command picture and motives were uncertain, while military and diplomatic communication remained active. He also said Indian forces were prepared to maintain their positions through winter conditions.

Washington: Cooperation alongside unpredictability

The conversation then turned to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit to India and the status of a potential trade deal, tariffs and Russian oil. Gupta described the visit as constructive, noting discussions on terrorism and the possibility of diesel supplies from Reliance’s Jamnagar refinery. He also said External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar raised India’s concerns about Pakistan.

But a positive diplomatic visit, Gupta argued, did not guarantee predictable outcomes. He characterised the trade negotiations as unfinished, saying India was looking for two things: a competitive rate compared with other countries and greater certainty that terms would not change abruptly. The broad parameters might be in place, he said, but the agreement could not be treated as settled until it was signed.

Energy added another layer. Gupta said the US was exploring interim diesel supplies from Jamnagar, while a 60-day tariff waiver offered only temporary relief. In his assessment, US decisions were strongly shaped by domestic priorities, including prices and electoral politics. That could make Washington’s policy shifts difficult for partners to anticipate.

The contrast with the China discussion is striking. On the border, India’s stated approach is tied to peace and tranquillity: Gupta said relations cannot move forward normally if that condition breaks down. With the US, the relationship is framed more around mutual interests, but trade and energy decisions remain vulnerable to changing political calculations.

Also Read: China updates visa application process for Indians, new rules now in effect

Strategic autonomy - and more options

Gupta described India’s approach as strategic autonomy: cooperating with major powers where interests align, while resisting the idea that it must choose one side. He also linked this stance to India’s ambition to represent the concerns of the Global South and prevent wider-power competition from imposing costs on developing countries.

That approach, as presented in the interview, includes broadening India’s options. Gupta pointed to potential energy links with Canada, including Alberta oil, and to a prospective trade agreement with the European Union. Diversifying partners and supply chains, he suggested, could reduce dependence on any single relationship and give India more room to manoeuvre.

The interview’s central argument is that India’s balancing act is not simply equidistance between Washington and Beijing. It is a combination of firm positions, selective cooperation and efforts to preserve choices. Along the China border, that means maintaining deployments while pursuing dialogue. With the US, it means seeking trade and energy gains while recognising that policy can change. For Gupta, the common thread is that India must stand its ground - and keep alternative paths open.