Col Ajay K Raina
Much has been written and spoken about the changing global dynamics in 2025. A sudden and overt dip in the Indo-US relationship, coupled with a seemingly meaningful resurgence of groups like RIC (Russia-India-China) and BRICS/BRICS+, which have been hanging fire for a while, has triggered geopolitical debates across the globe. It is against the backdrop of such significant developments that the global power dynamics of the 1950s/1960s, involving the US and USSR at one level and two Asian neighbours on the other, are being revisited to help readers take a fresh look at the 1962 conflict, as India treads through a complex geopolitical maze in 2025.
The Sino-Indian conflict of 1962 represents a pivotal moment in postcolonial Asian history, revealing the complex interplay between territorial disputes, regional politics, and global Cold War dynamics. While most scholarship has focused on the border issue as the primary cause, a deeper analysis uncovers a confluence of factors, including the Tibetan rebellion, Indian foreign policy, and covert operations by the United States. This article integrates primary and secondary sources, including declassified US documents, to provide a holistic understanding of the conflict, emphasising both regional and global dimensions.
Much research over the past sixty years has examined the causes of the Sino-Indian conflict, with the border issue taking centre stage. Indian official records, particularly the History of the Conflict with China (1962), portray the conflict as a result of Chinese expansionism, emphasising Beijing’s duplicity in diplomatic dealings and its incremental territorial advances along the frontier throughout the 1950s. The authors, Sinha and Athale, observe that the underlying theme involves Chinese betrayal and territorial ambitions.
Conversely, Chinese official accounts attribute the conflict to Indian aggression and imperialist tendencies inherited from Britain, focusing on Tibet as a flashpoint. Maxwell, in his seminal works, blamed Nehru’s “Forward Policy” for escalating the dispute, arguing that Indian misperceptions of Chinese intentions obstructed reconciliation and prolonged the conflict. J. Ward suggested that China viewed India as a potential threat, motivating its decision to initiate hostilities.
John Garver further explains China’s rationale through two interrelated factors: the perceived need to punish India for allegedly undermining Chinese control of Tibet and the perceived need to retaliate against Indian aggression along the border. Westcott, applying Poliheuristic Choice Theory, similarly concluded that Nehru bore responsibility for escalating the dispute. However, the declassified Chinese communications indicate that the Tibetan issue emerged as the most significant factor prompting China’s offensive against India on 20 October 1962.
Even decades later, border tensions have persisted, as evidenced by incidents in Doklam (2017), Galwan Valley (2020), and Tawang (2022).Despite extensive literature on borders and Tibet, few researchers have examined the Cold War context, particularly US covert involvement in Tibet, which catalysed Sino-Indian friction and shaped China’s perceptions of India.
By the late 1950s, Mao perceived India as a primary instigator of unrest in Tibet, a view shaped by CIA-supported Tibetan insurgencies launched from Indian territory. In July 1958, the CIA conducted arms drops in Tibet, prompting China to lodge formal protests to India, alleging complicity in subversive activities originating from Kalimpong.
The Tibetan uprising of March 1959 marked a turning point. The flight of the Dalai Lama to India and the massive refugee exodus catalysed a reassessment of Chinese foreign policy. Mao convened an enlarged CCP Politburo meeting on 25 April 1959, deciding to confront India militarily and sharply criticise Nehru. The People’s Daily published a series of articles condemning Indian interference in Tibet, highlighting the symbolic importance of the Dalai Lama in international discourse.
Initial skirmishes along the McMahon Line at Khinzemane and Longju in August 1959 resulted in fatalities and marked the first violent confrontations along the disputed border. India sought Soviet support, but Moscow adopted a neutral stance via TASS, which displeased Beijing and highlighted the emerging Sino-Soviet split.
India’s policy of non-alignment, articulated by Nehru, aimed to maintain independence in foreign affairs, avoiding binding alliances while engaging globally. Nehru considered non-alignment a safeguard for India’s sovereignty and moral leadership. Yet in the context of Cold War bipolarity, non-alignment was often interpreted by Western powers as tacitly pro-communist.
The United States viewed Tibet strategically. Covert CIA operations, coordinated with the State Department, were intended to influence India to adopt policies resisting Chinese expansion, rather than genuinely supporting Tibetan independence. By 1960-1961, intelligence assessments indicated that the Tibetan revolt had strained Sino-Indian relations, creating an opportunity for US influence. India’s subsequent outreach for military aid demonstrated the pragmatic limits of non-alignment and marked a temporary shift in its alignment during the conflict.
Sino-Soviet dynamics further complicated the picture. Khrushchev warned Mao against confrontation with India, citing the importance of preserving positive relations. Mao, however, prioritised Tibet over borders, asserting that India had provoked unrest. Declassified transcripts reveal heated arguments during October 1959 meetings, with Mao insisting that India be “crushed” regarding Tibetan issues, while promising eventual negotiations over the border.
The war erupted on 20 October 1962, with PLA offensives across the Western (Aksai Chin) and Eastern (NEFA) sectors. Mao’s decision was influenced by India’s perceived complicity in Tibetan resistance and ongoing border disputes. PLA forces advanced rapidly, exploiting Indian logistical and strategic weaknesses, compounded by Nehru’s “Forward Policy.” Skirmishes escalated into full-scale engagements at Longju, Walong, and other contested points.
India’s military was ill-prepared for high-altitude warfare and faced severe logistical challenges. Krishna Menon, initially a symbol of India’s anti-Western posture, faced criticism and was removed from office. The war revealed the practical constraints of non-alignment, as India sought military and diplomatic support from the United States, highlighting the pressures imposed by Cold War geopolitics.
The conflict deepened Sino-Soviet tensions and enabled US influence. CIA reports noted that the Tibetan revolt and ensuing war made India more receptive to Western aid and intelligence cooperation. The war highlighted the limitations of the Sino-Soviet alliance and underscored the strategic value of Tibet as a geopolitical lever.³?
China declared a unilateral ceasefire on 21 November 1962, withdrawing from the eastern sector while retaining Aksai Chin. The war solidified the Line of Actual Control (LAC), leaving border disputes unresolved. India reorganised its military, enhanced border infrastructure, and strengthened ties with Western powers. The conflict established patterns of regional rivalry that persist, including contemporary crises in Doklam, Galwan Valley, and Tawang.
The war also inadvertently reinforced the Pakistani-Chinese alliance, creating a long-term strategic counterbalance to India. The CIA’s Tibet operations, intended to influence Sino-Indian relations, also produced unintended consequences, including a stronger regional alliance between China and Pakistan.
The 1962 conflict reshaped regional geopolitics, exposed the limits of India’s non-alignment, and established enduring patterns in Sino-Indian relations, particularly regarding border disputes along the LAC. Contemporary crises in Doklam, Galwan, and Tawang underscore the enduring significance of the 1962 conflict. The war remains a case study in how regional disputes intersect with global geopolitical strategies, demonstrating the multifaceted dynamics of Cold War-era conflicts.
(This article is based on recent research by Lakshmana Kumar. The Author is a military historian and founding trustee of the Military History Research Foundation ®, India.)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
