Dipke’s criticism followed an acknowledgement by Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) Director General Shatrujeet Kapur that face-offs had occurred at several locations along the disputed frontier and remained unresolved. The disclosure prompted opposition leaders to question the government’s handling of border security and its public communication about tensions with China.
The CJP founder accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government of diverting security resources towards preventing demonstrations rather than strengthening frontier protection. He argued that maintaining public order should not come at the expense of safeguarding territory against external threats.
Dipke said the government’s priority should be securing the country’s borders rather than transforming Delhi into a fortress to prevent peaceful protests. His remarks followed the extension of additional Central Armed Police Forces deployments in the national capital amid concerns about possible demonstrations.
The Union Home Ministry has extended the deployment of 273 companies of Central Armed Police Forces in Delhi until October 31. The additional deployment, extended for a second time, was linked to apprehensions about possible flash protests by political organisations and other groups.
However, no evidence has emerged establishing that the deployment in Delhi has directly reduced the strength of forces guarding the frontier with China. Dipke’s assertion about compromised security remains a political allegation rather than an independently established operational assessment.
Kapur, addressing an ITBP felicitation ceremony in Alwar, Rajasthan, on Thursday, acknowledged that confrontations had occurred at multiple locations in Arunachal Pradesh. He praised the force’s newly constituted Shaurya commando teams for their performance during the continuing standoffs.
The disclosure provided official acknowledgement of continuing tensions along the Line of Actual Control, despite diplomatic and military engagement between New Delhi and Beijing aimed at maintaining stability along the disputed boundary.
Kapur did not identify every location involved or provide operational details about the confrontations. His remarks nevertheless drew attention to unresolved differences over patrolling arrangements and territorial perceptions along the northeastern frontier.
Responding to questions on Friday, Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said disturbances occurred when Chinese forces departed from established patrolling patterns. He referred questions about specific incidents to the Ministry of Defence.
Jaiswal maintained that both countries continued using established diplomatic and military mechanisms to address outstanding issues, prevent misunderstandings and avoid miscalculations along the Line of Actual Control.
He reiterated that peace and tranquillity in the border areas remained essential for the overall development of bilateral relations. The government did not publicly identify the locations of the continuing confrontations or disclose whether additional military discussions had been scheduled.
Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh also questioned Modi’s silence following the ITBP chief’s acknowledgement. Ramesh accused the government of making concessions to Beijing while failing to adequately explain developments affecting the country’s territorial security.
The Congress raised concerns about allegations that Chinese personnel had obstructed access to established patrolling points. Those allegations have not been independently established through publicly available official operational records.
Shiv Sena (UBT) parliamentarian Priyanka Chaturvedi demanded answers from the ministers responsible for home affairs, defence and external affairs. She questioned how government assurances about improving relations with China could be reconciled with continuing confrontations along the frontier.
The diplomatic dispute follows military discussions held on September 6 at the Wacha-Damai border meeting point concerning tensions around Taksing in Arunachal Pradesh’s Upper Subansiri district.
Those discussions followed engagements between local commanders intended to address disagreements and prevent escalation. The continuing face-offs indicate that some operational concerns remained unresolved despite those contacts.
Kapur also outlined plans to strengthen the ITBP’s specialised capabilities, including additional Shaurya commando formations, improved equipment and greater deployment of drone and counter-drone technology.
He emphasised that the force must retain its expertise in high-altitude operations while adapting to changing military requirements. The ITBP is responsible for guarding the 3,488-kilometre Line of Actual Control with China.
The director general said modernisation was necessary because existing weapons and equipment required improvement. He also described plans to expand specialised commando capabilities across border battalions.
The ITBP’s Shaurya units are being developed for demanding mountain operations, with additional teams and dedicated formations intended to strengthen the force’s preparedness along difficult frontier terrain.
