China India Photo: GT

In recent days, some Indian media have reported that India's Sikkim State plans to open the Dong Lang (Doklam) area and the Zhuo La (Cho La) Pass to tourists in late September, even developing them into "battlefield tourism" attractions. According to reports, in the initial phase, only 30 vehicles will be allowed to visit these sites daily, with a possible increase to 50 in the future. Currently, Sikkim State authorities are reportedly working with the Indian military to build tourism infrastructure in the area. A travel magazine described the move as a significant shift in how India protects and showcases its military heritage, claiming that "India, China, Bhutan strategic crossroads to become new frontier for patriotic travel."

This initiative is part of India's so-called "battlefield tourism" project aimed at "promoting battlefield tourism in areas where India's military history was shaped." Previous Indian media coverage also mentioned plans to develop tourism in the Galwan Valley. It is not difficult to see that many of the "sites" India has chosen for such tourism projects are regions that have seen recent military friction with countries like China and Pakistan - some of which still remain unstable. India's rush to advance "battlefield tourism" in these areas raises questions: is the real goal economic development or reinforcing de facto control over the so-called "disputed regions"?
Such activities carry multiple risks. Take the Dong Lang area as an example. Dong Lang is China's inherent territory and has no direct connection with India. In 2017, Indian troops illegally crossed the border from the Bhutanese side, leading to a military standoff between China and India. Since then, India has persistently promoted the false narrative that Dong Lang belongs to the boundary tri-junction. Apparently, India is planning tourism routes near Dong Lang, which was referred in Indian media as "Sikkim's Doklam region." This not only spreads misinformation among the Indian public, distorts history, but also undermines the foundation of mutual trust between the two countries. Second, tourists are typically less organized. These regions are located at high altitudes, with some mountain passes rarely visited by people. If not properly managed, civil incidents could easily lead to misjudgments or even friction and conflict between the two countries and their militaries. Third, border areas often see relatively active smuggling and intelligence-gathering activities. How India ensures that such illegal actions do not "travel with the group" into relative regions remains a serious concern. Lastly, high-altitude environments are ecologically fragile. Pollution is difficult to manage, and environmental protection is a major challenge in such regions.

There is nothing wrong with normal border tourism development, but a sustainable border tourism ecosystem must be built on full communication, mutual trust, and shared development with neighboring countries. China clearly outlines the purpose of developing border tourism in Article 1 of the Measures for the Administration of Border Tourism, which includes "promoting the economic prosperity and social stability of border areas" and "enhancing exchanges and friendship with the people in neighboring countries." In contrast, India's so-called "battlefield tourism" echoes previous actions such as hosting a G20 tourism meeting in the Kashmir region and filming "anti-China propaganda dramas" at Pangong Lake. These moves attempted to exploit border disputes to stir up so-called "national pride." Facts have proven that they were not only ineffective in advancing healthy relations with neighboring countries, but also risk escalating border tensions, frictions, and even conflicts - ultimately doing India no favors. This is irresponsible to the Indian people, to China-India relations and to regional security.

In fact, China and India have had positive experiences in promoting people-to-people exchanges in border areas that are worth drawing from. Earlier this year, under the guidance of the consensus reached between the two countries' leaders in Kazan, China and India agreed to resume the pilgrimage of Indian devotees to the Mount Kangrinboqe and Lake Mapam Yumco in Southwest China's Xizang Autonomous Region. Jointly promoting the resumption of this pilgrimage route is not only a landmark step in breaking the ice in China-India relations, but also reflects a shared willingness to manage differences rationally and pursue cooperation.

Previous data shows that each year, thousands of Indian pilgrims traveled via the Qiang La Pass and Nathu La Pass to Xizang's Mount Kangrinboqe and Lake Mapam Yumco. Their visits contributed significantly to the local economy through spending on food, lodging, transportation, and souvenirs. The influx of pilgrims also created vital employment opportunities for traders, guides, and service workers. This successful model should offer New Delhi valuable insight.

In May this year, India's net inflow of foreign direct investment was a mere $35 million, a staggering 98 percent year-on-year drop. The drop sparked growing concerns about the country's economic outlook. India's tourism sector, second only to software outsourcing in its service industry, holds significant untapped potential. The country is home to 44 UNESCO World Heritage Sites, ranking just behind Italy, Spain, China, Germany, France and Spain.

Yet for years, the number of Indian outbound travelers has far exceeded that of inbound tourists. This imbalance is partly due to the quality of domestic tourism services and partly a result of strained foreign relations. The combined population of China and India stands at over 2.8 billion. If India truly wants to develop its tourism sector, it would do better to focus on meaningful, people-oriented initiatives, such as streamlining visa processes, restoring direct flights with China, and strengthening think tank and people-to-people exchanges, rather than setting up a few border "check-in spots" to promote the so-called "victory narratives."

By fostering mutual trust and ensuring stable, cooperative bilateral relations, the Indian economy will embrace more development opportunities.