India insists Arunachal woman’s freedom, rejects China’s justification.
UK-based Indian Pem Wang Thongdok suffered after China invalidated her passport simply for showing Arunachal Pradesh as birthplace.
India has issued a strong diplomatic demarche to China after the controversial detention of Pem Wang Thongdok, a UK-based Indian citizen whose only “fault” was that her passport listed Arunachal Pradesh as her birthplace. The incident, which took place during her transit through Shanghai International Airport on 21 November, has quickly escalated into a serious diplomatic dispute—one that touches deep national sensitivities and longstanding geopolitical tensions between the two neighbours.
Thongdok was travelling from London to Japan and had a scheduled three-hour layover in Shanghai. She held a valid Indian passport and expected a routine transit stop like any other international traveller. Instead, she found herself pulled aside, questioned, and told that her passport was “invalid” because it mentioned Arunachal Pradesh—an Indian state China claims as “South Tibet.” What should have been a simple transit became an ordeal, leading to her detainment by Chinese immigration officials.
For India, this was not just an inconvenience for a citizen abroad but a direct affront to its sovereignty and its people. As soon as the details of the incident emerged, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) reacted strongly. India lodged formal protests—demarches—in both Beijing and New Delhi, expressing sharp displeasure over what it called an “arbitrary” and unacceptable action.
Responding to media questions about China’s later defence of the incident, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal issued a firm and unambiguous statement. He confirmed that Thongdok was indeed detained despite having a valid Indian passport and despite being a transit passenger who qualified, under Chinese rules, for 24-hour visa-free movement. He emphasised that China had not yet explained why she was stopped in the first place. Moreover, he pointed out that such detention violated internationally accepted air travel norms as well as China’s own policies.
Jaiswal’s statement went beyond procedural objections and underscored a deeper issue. “Arunachal Pradesh is an integral and inalienable part of India.” His words were not just a response to the incident but a reiteration of India’s long-held position on the state, which China continues to challenge through maps, visas, and diplomatic rhetoric.
China, however, rejected the allegations. At a press briefing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning defended the immigration officials, claiming they acted “according to laws and regulations.” She insisted that Thongdok had not been subjected to harsh treatment or forced detainment, saying she was provided a place to rest, given food and water, and treated “in accordance with her rights.”
Mao also suggested that her passport was not considered valid under Chinese regulations because of its mention of Arunachal Pradesh, which China claims as its own. Her defence, however, did little to address the core of India’s protest: that China had no right to invalidate an Indian passport based on Beijing’s territorial claims.
For Indians, the issue goes far beyond the travel troubles of one citizen. It touches the longstanding dispute over Arunachal Pradesh, a state whose people have repeatedly affirmed their Indian identity and whose connection with India is culturally, historically, and politically deep-rooted. For many in India, the detention felt like yet another attempt by China to reinforce its territorial claims through bureaucratic pressure.
The incident has also highlighted the vulnerability of travellers whose documents list places disputed by foreign governments. For Thongdok, what should have been a simple journey became a distressing experience—one that left her feeling targeted because of her birthplace. Her case has resonated widely because it humanises a geopolitical tension that often feels distant and abstract. It reminds people that these disputes have real consequences for ordinary citizens.
India’s strong response signals that it is unwilling to tolerate any actions that undermine the dignity of its citizens or challenge the sovereignty of its territories. The MEA’s message is clear: Arunachal Pradesh is not negotiable, and China cannot unilaterally decide which Indian passports are “valid.”
As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen whether China will offer an explanation or make changes to prevent similar incidents. But for now, the controversy stands as a sharp reminder of how fragile diplomatic interactions can become when deeper disputes lie beneath the surface—and how a single moment at an airport can open a window into the complex realities of global politics.