The Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs has renamed the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh as Zangnan or “South Tibet” on Chinese maps including 15 other places. The rationale, according to the Chinese authorities, is to standardise Tibetan and Roman alphabet of places in Chinese characters. The announcement also provides the longitude and latitude of the renamed places of which eight are residential areas, four are mountains, two are rivers and one is a mountain pass. Apparently this is the second time that the Chinese authorities have attempted to “reassign such names” of Indian places; in 2017, six places were renamed.

The renaming of Arunachal Pradesh in Chinese maps, according to Chinese sources, is also in pursuance of Land Borders Law that came into force on 01 January 2022. According to the Law, China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are “sacred and inviolable” and that the country must take necessary “measures to safeguard territorial integrity and land boundaries and guard against and combat any act that undermines territorial sovereignty and land boundaries”.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman has stated that “Southern Tibet is in China’s Tibet Autonomous Region, and has historically been Chinese territory,” and that the renaming is within “the scope of China's sovereignty”. Meanwhile, a Chinese expert from the China Tibetology Research Center has dismissed Indian concerns and stated that the renaming of places in Chinese characters was a “national effort to standardise the management of place names”. Furthermore, these places have existed for hundreds of years and it is China's sovereign right to standardized names and “more standardized place names in the region will be announced in the future”.

The Indian External Affairs Ministry spokesperson has conveyed to the Chinese that “Arunachal Pradesh has always been, and will always be an integral part of India. Assigning invented names to places in Arunachal Pradesh does not alter this fact,” From New Delhi’s perspective the new Land Borders Law aims to legitimize China’s military’s transgressions in Eastern Ladakh and augment military infrastructure along disputed areas by setting up villages and civilian settlements.

The current attempts to reassign Chinese names in the Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh should be seen as expressions of “creeping expansionism” or “salami slicing”. It is quite similar to its approaches in the South China Sea where it has assigned Chinese names to islands, rocks and reefs through ‘trademarks’.

It is useful to mention that the ‘trademark registration’ process is an international practice and governments put out their policies with respect to registration of goods and services. In the Chinese context, it involves naming features in “stylized Chinese calligraphy”. These trademarks can be anything such as musical instruments or even legal services. Some of the logos are colorful illustrations of panoramic view of these features and in some cases the name are English “transliteration”.  

Earlier this year in April, China announced “names for 25 islands, shoals and reefs, and 55 undersea mountains and ridges”. These 80 topographical formations include “ten unnamed sandbars and two small reefs in the Paracel Island chain; 13 smaller reefs around West Reef currently under control of Vietnam; and 55 underwater features spread across the South China Sea. Ironically, ‘trademarking’ has not been mainstreamed in the discourse on South China Sea and has “largely slipped under the radar” given that the registration process began several years ago.

It is not surprising that renaming of features in South China Sea by China attracted sharp reactions from other claimants. For instance, Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council declared “unquestionable sovereignty over Itu Aba as well as long-term effective governance over the island” and therefore China’s trademarks are “inconsistent with international standards and criticized them as a deliberate attempt to create a false image of Chinese jurisdiction over Itu Aba”.

In the Philippines, the registration of features through trademark by China has been labelled dubious and the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines has observed that it cannot be applied to physical features and islands.

Similarly, Vietnam has rejected the legitimacy of such “trademarks” and it has set Vietnamese names to the seas, islands, rocks and reefs in the South China Sea. It is a Vietnamese government’s practice to use only official names of seas, islands, rocks and reefs in speeches, statements and correspondences.

Finally, it is well known that China adopts different strategies and a variety of tools and tactics to stake claims and exercise sovereignty over foreign territories. This issue has not been mainstreamed in the discourse on Chinese expansive claims and illegal occupation in the South China Sea and now in the Himalayas. It should also serve as a caution for other countries that share borders with China on land, at sea or both.

Dr Vijay Sakhuja is Consultant Kalinga International Foundation, New Delhi.