China’s carefully cultivated aura of military invincibility suffered a significant blow when Beijing shifted from months of silence over the June 15, 2020. Galwan Valley clash led to a tightly controlled admission in February 2021 that only four People’s Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers had died. The episode not only exposed the fragility of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) propaganda machinery but also revealed deeper anxieties within Beijing about perception, power and regional dominance.
The deadly confrontation in eastern Ladakh marked the most serious military clash between India and China in over four decades. Twenty Indian soldiers were killed in action in the Galwan Valley. This was an incident that triggered global scrutiny and hardened India’s posture along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
While New Delhi publicly honoured its fallen, Beijing stonewalled. For months after the clash, the Chinese government refused to confirm any casualties, suppressing discussion across state media and social platforms.
This prolonged silence was not accidental. The CCP’s legitimacy rests heavily on projecting strength, control and inevitability, especially regarding the PLA, which is portrayed as a modern, disciplined and unbeatable force under the leadership of Xi Jinping.
Admitting heavy losses in a chaotic, hand-to-hand border clash would have been difficult for any government—especially one that places strong emphasis on strength and control.
In the months that followed, various international reports and intelligence assessments suggested that Chinese casualties may have been higher than the four deaths Beijing officially acknowledged. Some estimates claimed the number could have exceeded 38, including soldiers who reportedly drowned in the Galwan River during the fighting. China has never confirmed those figures. The gap between official statements and outside assessments however led to growing skepticism.
When Beijing finally addressed the issue in February 2021, it did so carefully. State media announced that four PLA soldiers had died and honoured them as “martyrs.” One of them, Qi Fabao, a regimental commander, was presented as a symbol of courage and sacrifice.
Videos, tributes, and public ceremonies followed in China, presenting the clash as a story of bravery and sacrifice rather than a costly confrontation.
But the eight-month delay raised obvious questions. Why wait so long to confirm casualties? Why acknowledge only four deaths when outside reports suggested the number might have been much higher?
To many observers, it did not feel like transparency. It felt like careful damage control. By admitting limited losses, Beijing may have hoped to appear honest and also protect its image of strength.
In today’s connected world, it is much harder to tightly control a story. Satellite images, independent researchers, and constant global media coverage mean that information travels quickly. When China’s official version did not match outside assessments, it naturally led to questions.
Governments across Southeast Asia and the wider Indo-Pacific were paying attention.The reluctance to be completely forthcoming about losses indicated that the concern for public relations at home is still a consideration for Beijing. The perception of constant and unimpeachable strength is a function of messaging. When that messaging becomes forced, it can quietly influence how others assess the strength of China.
The promotion of soldiers such as Qi Fabao as heroes was intended to foster a sense of pride and solidarity. And for most Chinese, this was the case. However, it also served as a reminder to outsiders that the People’s Liberation Army, like any military force, is not invincible, particularly in difficult, high-altitude areas such as Ladakh, where even the most powerful militaries can struggle. The delayed admission showed how seriously Beijing values its reputation. Once the image of dominance is questioned, restoring it is not simple.
For countries dealing with China’s assertiveness along disputed borders and maritime regions, Galwan offered a quiet lesson: perceptions can shift. Strength is not only about military capability—it is also about trust and openness.
In that sense, the acknowledgment of four deaths carried meaning beyond the figure itself. It revealed how much modern power rests not just on force, but on the belief in that force. And when that belief weakens, even slightly, the balance of confidence in a region can begin to change.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: ZEE News
