His remarks follow a memorandum by Nah Welfare Society alleging PLA activity near Taksing and a satellite-imagery report on Chinese road construction; Indian Army and Kiren Rijiju deny any intrusion
Mumbai/New Delhi: Prakash Ambedkar, President of Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) has raised sharp questions over the BJP-led Central government’s response to allegations of Chinese activity near the Taksing sector in Arunachal Pradesh’s Upper Subansiri district, saying the issue concerns India’s territorial integrity, border security and the rights of local tribal communities.
In a strongly worded post on X, Ambedkar cited claims made by the Nah Welfare Society, a community-based organisation from Taksing, which submitted a memorandum to the Deputy Commissioner of Upper Subansiri. The organisation alleged that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army has gradually expanded its presence in areas traditionally used by local communities for grazing, hunting, collection of forest produce and other customary activities. Reports said the society identified Oying, Paniar, Marpan, Potrang Lake and Tindingtang as locations it claims have come under Chinese occupation since 2020.
According to the memorandum, Chinese forces have allegedly constructed roads, bridges, military camps and supporting infrastructure in areas considered by the local community to be part of Indian territory. The Nah Welfare Society appealed to both the Arunachal Pradesh government and the Centre to take immediate steps to verify and stop any further Chinese activity in the region.
The memorandum described the situation as alarming, stating that local communities were “losing our land inch by inch day by day.” It also said the community continues to have faith in the Indian Army, but wants stronger intervention from the government to protect border areas.
Ambedkar said the Centre cannot brush aside such concerns merely through denials. He questioned Union Minister Kiren Rijiju’s rejection of the claims and asked why the government, which often speaks aggressively on national security, remains defensive when allegations concern China. He also asked whether political image management has become more important than transparent accountability on border security.
The controversy gained further attention after an NDTV satellite-imagery report dated July 1, 2026, said China was constructing a new road in an Arunachal border area that India does not currently control, though the area falls within the McMahon Line as shown on Survey of India maps. The report also said a construction plant and two helipads appeared to be within India’s original claim-lines, while adding that this could not be confirmed because the India-China boundary has never been officially demarcated.
However, the Indian Army has rejected reports of recent Chinese encroachment in Arunachal Pradesh, describing them as “incorrect and without any basis.” The Army said media reports alleging fresh PLA encroachment and setting up of camps in Arunachal Pradesh were unfounded.
Union Minister Kiren Rijiju also denied any intrusion into Indian territory. He was quoted as saying that there is “no intrusion” and that transgressions from both sides happen from time to time due to the absence of clear border demarcation.
The issue has now created three competing narratives: a local tribal organisation alleging loss of traditional land access, satellite imagery suggesting visible Chinese infrastructure in a disputed claim-line area, and official denials from the Indian Army and the Union minister.
Ambedkar said the matter should not be reduced to routine political exchange. According to him, questions about Arunachal Pradesh’s border villages, local tribal communities and Chinese infrastructure activity require transparent answers from the government.
The allegations remain subject to official verification. But the controversy has once again brought focus on India’s border management in Arunachal Pradesh, the role of local communities as frontline witnesses, and the need for credible communication from the government on sensitive national security matters.
