'Normalisation without delimitation is a fragile peace.' Critically analyse this statement with reference to recent India-China boundary talks.

The 2005 Political Parameters and Guiding Principles Agreement binds India and China to a final package settlement covering all sectors of the boundary [1]. Two decades later, the boundary remains undelimited even as ties normalise — making the statement largely, though not wholly, valid.

Normalisation has delivered real gains

• The 25th round of Special Representatives' talks (Beijing, August 2026) saw NSA Doval and FM Wang Yi agree to continue working towards a political settlement of the boundary question in the context of overall and long-term interests [2].
• Following the Kazan meeting (October 2024), the October disengagement was implemented, restoring patrolling and grazing in relevant areas — a tangible de-risking on the ground [4].
• Institutional thickening: the SR channel now runs alongside the WMCC and military-commander talks; the 24th round (New Delhi, 2025) explicitly covered de-escalation, delimitation and boundary affairs [3].

Why the peace remains fragile

• Disengagement is not de-escalation — forces and infrastructure remain forward-deployed, and buffer zones curtail traditional patrolling rights.
• The LAC is unmapped in several sectors; differing perceptions make face-offs structurally recurrent. Confidence-building measures treat symptoms, not the cause.
• The trust deficit created by the 2020 standoff persists; India has pressed for a "structured roadmap of permanent engagement and de-escalation" leading to eventual delimitation [5].
• Progress is leader-driven and reversible — talks stall after incidents (Doklam 2017, Galwan 2020) and revive only after summits, leaving peace hostage to political atmospherics.

A calibrated verdict

• Fragility is not futility: hotlines, river-data mechanisms and hardened communication channels lower the cost of miscalculation even before settlement.
• Delimitation is the necessary condition for durable peace; normalisation is the enabling one — sequencing matters, but neither substitutes for the other.

The statement is broadly sound: peace resting on managed ambiguity can be unmade by a single incident. Yet incremental normalisation is the realistic pathway to delimitation, not an alternative to it. India's course — steady engagement through the 2005 framework, backed by credible border infrastructure and force posture — best converts a fragile calm into a settled, verifiable boundary.