What's new

40 Chinese soldiers camping in India is no intrusion, says Union minister

Toothless tiger only fights when enemy is already handicapped like in 71 n 99
enemy is handicapped what do you mean?you call your army handicapped when they had the courage to intrude into indian territory at 1999?and in 1971 your general said that he was so sure that he will win that he said he will fight till the last man.
 
. . . .
India misreads Chinese incursion, ties itself in knots

NEW DELHI: A group of Chinese troops pitching tents in Depsang Bulge in eastern Ladakh since April 15 has thrown the Indian government into a mass of confusion. As Chinese troops grow roots in an area 19km inside what India considers its own territory and which holds immense strategic importance for the country, crossed wires, leaks and a blame game has taken over New Delhi.

The civilian leadership, comprising both the MEA and the PMO, had initially discounted reports of the incursion. MEA spokesperson, Syed Akbaruddin, has made perhaps the only strongly-worded statement on the issue so far, when he said the Chinese should revert to "status-quo ante". From the beginning it was clear this was no ordinary incursion, or aggressive patrolling that Indians and Chinese regularly engage in these days. There was solid reasoning behind the MEA's decision to raise the decibel level on this issue.

However, this was swiftly overtaken by other voices — foreign minister Salman Khurshid dismissed the incident, variously calling it "localized" and even described it as "acne". At the higher levels in the foreign policy establishment, the more important issue seemed to be preserving the bilateral ties with China. The dominant narrative was not that India would do everything to get the Chinese off Indian soil, but that this event would not be allowed to ruin ties with Beijing.

All voices arguing for a more robust response were successfully hushed. At every stage, it was more important that the new Chinese premier Li Keqiang's visit, beginning May 20, be insulated from this. When the media noise became too loud, the government "inspired" certain strategic experts to write dismissive articles on the incident, saying it happens "all the time". Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was advised to say the incident was "localized".

It was becoming clear that the incident was more serious than ever before and was a bigger geo-strategic threat to India. If Li's visit was important to the Chinese they would not have done the incursion barely a month before the visit. The Chinese were clearly testing the Indian preparedness, and it was the most serious incident since Sumdorong Chu in Arunachal Pradesh 1987. India could not possibly let the Chinese stay.

The uniformed brass was busy making own assessments. Beyond dispatching a team of Ladakh Scouts to the area, the armed forces did not take the steps they should have to evict the Chinese. In Delhi, the game in the defence corridors became two-fold — the Army was waiting for directions from the civilian leadership to take any action. Among the civilian leadership, the assessment was the Army was totally incapable of taking on the Chinese juggernaut. Any military action on the Indian part would result in escalation and it could be another 1962 again. That froze all action, while it drove the Indian bureaucrats in Delhi and Beijing to burn the phone lines with the Chinese.

Besides, the paramilitary forces, the intelligence establishment, all started leaking to the media like crazy. Everybody had a partial story to tell, but everybody told it anyway, because that was the only way they were getting any traction. Thus the media knew the outcome — or lack thereof — of flag meetings before the government had a chance to vet it. Inevitably, the media became the villain of the piece. From the district commissioner's office in Leh to bureaucrats and officers in New Delhi, a gag order has been issued.

First, India was caught off-guard. Second, India's intelligence assessment of the incident and its implications has been inadequate at best. Third, while trying to play the good boys with Beijing initially by not taking any action, now New Delhi will be seen to be taking action under public pressure, not because the government has deemed the incident to have crossed a threshold.

An April 2005 Protocol on CBMs between India and China lays out in detail the steps to be taken by troops if they encounter a "face-off" situation. The protocol has been followed in large measure. But this time it wasn't. China had violated the 2005 pact, but if one believes the highest levels of the government, this is just another incident.

India misreads Chinese incursion, ties itself in knots - The Times of India
 
. .
Yeah you area absolutely right... no one else knows better than pakistan... 1965, 1971,1999.....

Sure in 1948, 1965, 1971 yes we lost only because u couldnt fight us in man to man basis. n in 99 hahaha well just 3500-4000 poorly trained men took out 30,000 profession army men n still reached up to the road that connects siachin.
Few men died in our part but more died there.

This was a militarily victory no doubt but we lost it due to our politicians.

enemy is handicapped what do you mean?you call your army handicapped when they had the courage to intrude into indian territory at 1999?and in 1971 your general said that he was so sure that he will win that he said he will fight till the last man.
in 1971 u had look advantage of our internal problems, destroyed our supplies from sea n launched an air block. So we has run out of supplies there.

In 99 just 3500-4000 poorly trained armed men took on a professional army of 30,000 men in the area n still reached up to that road from where yr supplies were going to siachin even with out Air support, Artillary n u had them both.
still more men died in yr side then in ours.
 
. . .
Sure in 1948, 1965, 1971 yes we lost only because u couldnt fight us in man to man basis. n in 99 hahaha well just 3500-4000 poorly trained men took out 30,000 profession army men n still reached up to the road that connects siachin.
Few men died in our part but more died there.

This was a militarily victory no doubt but we lost it due to our politicians.


in 1971 u had look advantage of our internal problems, destroyed our supplies from sea n launched an air block. So we has run out of supplies there.

In 99 just 3500-4000 poorly trained armed men took on a professional army of 30,000 men in the area n still reached up to that road from where yr supplies were going to siachin even with out Air support, Artillary n u had them both.
still more men died in yr side then in ours.

You call your own army men "poorly trained" ???? That's true!!! ... the results said all... Take your time train some 5000 men well and let us know.. then we'll also send exactly 5000 of our army men to fight "man to man basis"... okay dear ???

LOL it was because of that internal problem in east pakistan not u.

That internal problem wouldn't have had become so big without external support !!!
 
.
You call your own army men "poorly trained" ???? That's true!!! ... the results said all... Take your time train some 5000 men well and let us know.. then we'll also send exactly 5000 of our army men to fight "man to man basis"... okay dear ???



That internal problem wouldn't have had become so big without external support !!!
Kiddo read history, they were mujahideen.

LOL we will surely do that n but r u people ready for threshing??:rofl:
 
.
Kiddo read history, they were mujahideen.

LOL we will surely do that n but r u people ready for threshing??:rofl:

Dear... you read the proper history books... not one made in pakistan !!! .... Didn't you know even Nawaz Shariff and Musharraf admitted that they are Pakistan army men. May be you have selective amnesia to forget important things :omghaha:
 
.
Dear... you read the proper history books... not one made in pakistan !!! .... Didn't you know even Nawaz Shariff and Musharraf admitted that they are Pakistan army men. May be you have selective amnesia to forget important things :omghaha:

:lol: Kiddo they were mainly mujahadeen and then they used to liberated a peak then army used to come n setup defensive equipment there. Hence Pak army used to get involved afterwards. and that was what they meant when they said that.
and speaking abt history n propaganda:lol:

Here is the proof of who is who n what is what.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/244167-disclosing-kargil-casualties-would-affect-morale-troops-cic.html

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/terror-alert-in-mumbai-over-pak-men-shows-govt-fumble-209190

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/06/22/is-there-a-ban-on-bad-news-from-india/

This is yr credibility n of the wikipedia whose chief editor is an indian. So we will rather believe in our ''fake'' history book then yr imaginary claims.
 
.
Could not agree more!

India is living on a time bomb (.3b M) and they are talking non sense.

Muj and Isl terrorism is real which hindus still dont want to learn. Pak army, Muj, Indian M are all the same, what difference does it make.

I think this step of china could have costed them more had the shamless hindus used this chance to promote made in India brand ...

Shame on army for supporting a dangerous govt, in that aspect I like pak army they stand for the nation. india army stands for kahgnress which in turn is controlled by ISI.


With good and nationalistic people a small country liek Pak is giving tough time to the world...

the first and most imp thing india wants is war, because if we dont die now killing a few then we will die by Indian terrorist like hidus are dying in bengal bihar kerela JK UP Assam ... better to die trying to liberate yourself from terrrorist who are ruling you from 900 yers...



:lol: Kiddo they were mainly mujahadeen and then they used to liberated a peak then army used to come n setup defensive equipment there. Hence Pak army used to get involved afterwards. and that was what they meant when they said that.
and speaking abt history n propaganda:lol:

Here is the proof of who is who n what is what.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/244167-disclosing-kargil-casualties-would-affect-morale-troops-cic.html

Terror alert in Mumbai over Pak men shows govt fumble | NDTV.com

Is there a ban on reporting bad news from India? | Andrew Buncombe | Independent Editor's choice Blogs

This is yr credibility n of the wikipedia whose chief editor is an indian. So we will rather believe in our ''fake'' history book then yr imaginary claims.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom