China unveils 5-point formula to improve ties with India

[armchairPrivate]

OH brother!

 

[AADHAAR]

thank for telling me you are an idiot I will take your advice and never argue with Indians again

however stupid you may be.. I'm glad that about the second part of your post.

 

[Hellraiser007]

Do you understand cricket is a sport only play by 8 or less country and with the size of your population even if you dominate the sport entirely for 100 of years is it still a pathetic achievement got it?

Over 2 Billion people watch this sport in this world and BCCI is the richest cricket board which may come in top clubs with highest revenue.

 

[dabong1]

The first point would be that you started this entire affair by granting the Dalai Lama asylum and then initiating the Forward Policy in which india placed outposts along the border, including several north of the McMahon Line.

This is utter stupidity! If you are capable of capturing... They why can't keep it?

Maybe if i starts with a few wiki quotes and if you dont accept them i can move onto othe sources to prove my point.

"The war ended when the Chinese declared a ceasefire on 20 November 1962, and simultaneously announced its withdrawal from the disputed area."

China had reached its claim lines so the PLA did not advance farther, and on 19 November, it declared a unilateral cease-fire. Zhou Enlai declared a unilateral ceasefire to start on midnight, 21 November. Zhou's ceasefire declaration stated,

Beginning from 21 November 1962, the Chinese frontier guards will cease fire along the entire Sino-Indian border. Beginning from 1 December 1962, the Chinese frontier guards will withdraw to positions 20 kilometres behind the line of actual control which existed between China and India on 7 November 1959. In the eastern sector, although the Chinese frontier guards have so far been fighting on Chinese territory north of the traditional customary line, they are prepared to withdraw from their present positions to the north of the illegal McMahon Line, and to withdraw twenty kilometres back from that line. In the middle and western sectors, the Chinese frontier guards will withdraw twenty kilometres from the line of actual control.

What stopped them from carrying on.... You start a war just because the negotiations fail... But China stop the war to solve everything through negotiations... What an idea sirji!

Well "sirji" i hope the above quote Zhou Enlai has answered your qestions.

There was another theory that if IAF was used then India could have crushed PLA

The only problem with that theory is that you indians keep thinking that the chinese wont send there air force also to take you on.

But speaking about things which had NOT happened is absolute waste of time and energy!

Well the few things that did happen.

1.There was a war
2.India lost
3.The chinese where in a winning postion
4.The chinese withdrew unilaterally

The question posed is why did the chinese not carry on and take everything they claim and if not more.I think it is because they want a negotiated settlement as this will last and get rid of future conflict between the two.
If you have a better theory please do share.

 

[AADHAAR]

The first point would be that you started this entire affair by granting the Dalai Lama asylum and then initiating the Forward Policy in which india placed outposts along the border, including several north of the McMahon Line.




Maybe if i starts with a few wiki quotes and if you dont accept them i can move onto othe sources to prove my point.

"The war ended when the Chinese declared a ceasefire on 20 November 1962, and simultaneously announced its withdrawal from the disputed area."

China had reached its claim lines so the PLA did not advance farther, and on 19 November, it declared a unilateral cease-fire. Zhou Enlai declared a unilateral ceasefire to start on midnight, 21 November. Zhou's ceasefire declaration stated,

Beginning from 21 November 1962, the Chinese frontier guards will cease fire along the entire Sino-Indian border. Beginning from 1 December 1962, the Chinese frontier guards will withdraw to positions 20 kilometres behind the line of actual control which existed between China and India on 7 November 1959. In the eastern sector, although the Chinese frontier guards have so far been fighting on Chinese territory north of the traditional customary line, they are prepared to withdraw from their present positions to the north of the illegal McMahon Line, and to withdraw twenty kilometres back from that line. In the middle and western sectors, the Chinese frontier guards will withdraw twenty kilometres from the line of actual control.





Well "sirji" i hope the above quote Zhou Enlai has answered your qestions.




The only problem with that theory is that you indians keep thinking that the chinese wont send there air force also to take you on.




Well the few things that did happen.

1.There was a war
2.India lost
3.The chinese where in a winning postion
4.The chinese withdrew unilaterally

The question posed is why did the chinese not carry on and take everything they claim and if not more.I think it is because they want a negotiated settlement as this will last and get rid of future conflict between the two.
If you have a better theory please do share.

There is no need for a "theory" because truth is readily available:

1. Was it a border conflict or a war -- more pigs died of pollution in shanghai, last month (16000) than the chinese killed in that border conflict (722 chinese killed).

At best, it was equivalent to Kargil.. and end result of Kargil and the 1962 conflict was the same. India recovered it's territories at the end of both the war or conflict, whatever way it's labelled.

(Aksai chin was occupied by china, not in 1962 but surreptitiously in 1959. After occupying Tibet, they wanted to sieze India's Ladakh region too. Yes, to an extent they still occupy that part illegally which they occupied in 1959. But there was no military victory achieved for illegal occupation of Aksai Chin).

The so-called forward policy was a fabrication of an India-hater brit Neville chamberlain. Independent observers have noted a clear bias borne out of hatred for India, rather than any love for china in his blatantly false writings. As expected, naive chinese readily ran to lick the boots of this brit, under the maxim that enemy of my enemy is my friend.

2. India declined ceasefire from china... at status quo.

China had no option but to withdraw to status quo ante positions (i.e. to positions prior to the conflict). And it did.

3. China were in no winning position. There tactic was hit-and-run, from the very beginning.

There non-military supplies were actually routed thru the port of Calcutta (now Kolkata). Obviously that supply route closed after the border conflicts began.

China never had any jurisidiction or logistical supply lines to Tibet, leave alone to those remote Indian border regions.

China had two options: (1) Freeze in the approaching winters, or (2) Run back.

Running back was built into the the hit-and-run plan. They knew they were never in a position to sieze Indian territory.

India never built border posts in those remote border regions because of the farce of friendship set up by china.

4. India need not rush into a settlement for a "border with china" because none has existed since historical times.

There was always an Indo-Tibet border, but never an India-china border.

The final settlement of border with Tibet needs a legitimate government in Tibet.

Till that time status quo persists .. that's what the most likely situation is going to be.

 

[Rocky25]

The first point would be that you started this entire affair by granting the Dalai Lama asylum and then initiating the Forward Policy in which india placed outposts along the border, including several north of the McMahon Line.

Typical Nehru blunders! Totally accept it!

Maybe if i starts with a few wiki quotes and if you dont accept them i can move onto othe sources to prove my point.

Appreciate that!

"The war ended when the Chinese declared a ceasefire on 20 November 1962, and simultaneously announced its withdrawal from the disputed area."

Why did they did that? War ethics state that if you want to occupy a foreign land, First you should wage war and then withdraw your troops and then negotiate with them and get things in your favor? I think it was NEVER a practice from 10000 BC.
If they follow that practice they why did Askai Chin was NOT vacated? Food for thought!

China had reached its claim lines so the PLA did not advance farther, and on 19 November, it declared a unilateral cease-fire. Zhou Enlai declared a unilateral ceasefire to start on midnight, 21 November. Zhou's ceasefire declaration stated,

Beginning from 21 November 1962, the Chinese frontier guards will cease fire along the entire Sino-Indian border. Beginning from 1 December 1962, the Chinese frontier guards will withdraw to positions 20 kilometres behind the line of actual control which existed between China and India on 7 November 1959. In the eastern sector, although the Chinese frontier guards have so far been fighting on Chinese territory north of the traditional customary line, they are prepared to withdraw from their present positions to the north of the illegal McMahon Line, and to withdraw twenty kilometres back from that line. In the middle and western sectors, the Chinese frontier guards will withdraw twenty kilometres from the line of actual control.

If they completely defeated us then why retreat? They could have asked us to sign instrument of surrender right and got the settlement in their favor! Did they got warning from the Americans?

Well "sirji" i hope the above quote Zhou Enlai has answered your qestions.

I am AFRAID it did NOT! Not even 0.0001%

The only problem with that theory is that you indians keep thinking that the chinese wont send there air force also to take you on.

But whether PLAF had that capabilities then? A questions cannot be answered! So as I said earlier let us not delve into if's and but's...

But still, If IAF thought that PAF will respond for IAF's action in Kargil war and stayed back then IA would have paid much higher price!

Well the few things that did happen. - My comments in BLUE.

1.There was a war - Yes there was a war and India was caught off guard... The then Indian premier said on record that a country like India DOES not need military and yet ventured into making advances into Chinese territory.. He tested the depth with both legs! He made mistakes!
2.India lost - Yes, India was humiliated and a black mole in post 1947's India's History, Which it will never forget!
3.The chinese where in a winning postion - If India lost then the Chinese won... There cannot be two standards, but claiming that they 'COULD' have occupied Delhi is Pathetic, which they never did... I cannot answer for your 'could' theories... The timing was perfect.. the two super powers Soviet Union and Americans are each others throats with Cuban missile crisis... The Chinese did a good job with the time and surprise attack!
4.The chinese withdrew unilaterally - Yes, but that did NOT mean they 'COULD' have occupied Delhi.... Shortly I feel that the Chinese did a cold start with India and inflicted damage which were thought never possible before...

The question posed is why did the chinese not carry on and take everything they claim and if not more.I think it is because they want a negotiated settlement as this will last and get rid of future conflict between the two.
If you have a better theory please do share.

If that was true they why did they still kept Askai Chin? If they want negotiated settlement then why did they became a party in Indo-Pakistan Kashmir dispute but getting a piece of Kashmir from Pakistan? Why did they make Pakistan a nuclear power?

Crossing the Himalayas is NOT an easy task... Holds good even now! Who knew whether they had enough Ammunition's to carry on... we will never know, they still don't have free media in 2013... No need to tell 1962... There are some theories that they got warnings from the Americans with nuclear strike!

What ever may be it... It is NOT that your 'COULD' are all true.. A bitter lesson learnt.... Its India's Pearl Harbor... in terms of humiliating experience!

 

[SamantK]

Some of my thoughts

Why did they did that? War ethics state that if you want to occupy a foreign land, First you should wage war and then withdraw your troops and then negotiate with them and get things in your favor? I think it was NEVER a practice from 10000 BC.
If they follow that practice they why did Askai Chin was NOT vacated? Food for thought!

When did they start the war to occupy, as far as I have read it was due to the Forward policy plus India playing as a meek and humble country.

If they completely defeated us then why retreat? They could have asked us to sign instrument of surrender right and got the settlement in their favor! Did they got warning from the Americans?

Again read above, their objective was to send a message to India, stop forward policy. Did we stop it, no - we abandoned it. Did they achieve their objective, Yes.

 

[Rocky25]

Some of my thoughts


When did they start the war to occupy, as far as I have read it was due to the Forward policy plus India playing as a meek and humble country.

If that was the case why still they have Askai Chin? Still India was a meek and humble country!

Again read above, their objective was to send a message to India, stop forward policy. Did we stop it, no - we abandoned it. Did they achieve their objective, Yes.

I was responding to that other guy who said 'China COULD have occupied New Delhi and submitted Delhi to fall at their feet'... I don't think their could theories are necessarily true. If their mandate was to send message.. then why did they kept Askai Chin... If they think Askai Chin is their Territory, so they kept it... They why they backed off from Arunachal Pradesh, which they still say as disputed!

 

[3Idiots]

Some of my thoughts


When did they start the war to occupy, as far as I have read it was due to the Forward policy plus India playing as a meek and humble country.


Again read above, their objective was to send a message to India, stop forward policy. Did we stop it, no - we abandoned it. Did they achieve their objective, Yes.

there was no "forward policy", as described in neville maxwell's book.
the chinese first entered ladakh (aksai chin) in 1959 as a follow up to their occupation of tibet.

india's was a reactive step of setting up border posts in unmanned and undemarcated india-tibet borders.

the situation remains exactly the same today as historically this border has never been demarkated, except by tibet and british, which india does not recognize. indian govt never signed any border agreement with tibet.

china's position is ambiguous since its claim to tibet itself is dubious.

 

[deepak.chauhan2312]

i stand by my statement even today )) Its NOT the Chinese leader who opted to spoke about India but its again the same rondu Indian Media who approached him for interview rather India centeric questioning

its not that China doesn't care but they are super cautious about India.

 

[SamantK]

If that was the case why still they have Askai Chin? Still India was a meek and humble country!

A bonus, defending Aksai chin was easy for China. J&K was already a disputed land.

I was responding to that other guy who said 'China COULD have occupied New Delhi and submitted Delhi to fall at their feet'... I don't think their could theories are necessarily true. If their mandate was to send message.. then why did they kept Askai Chin... If they think Askai Chin is their Territory, so they kept it... They why they backed off from Arunachal Pradesh, which they still say as disputed!

AP was and is not recognised by UN as disputed, only by China. IMO it was made a dispute to increase India's pain. Also I read that China offered India to settle the whole issue but India declined.

This is what I think.. Some one can come and bash me

 

[3Idiots]

A bonus, defending Aksai chin was easy for China. J&K was already a disputed land.


AP was and is not recognised by UN as disputed, only by China. IMO it was made a dispute to increase India's pain. Also I read that China offered India to settle the whole issue but India declined.

This is what I think.. Some one can come and bash me

china offered to do us a "favour" by settling the current line of actual control at Arunachal Pradesh border, only if India, agrees to giving them Aksai Chin.

India rightly refused, since Ladakh (Aksai chin is a part of Ladakh) was never a part of Tibet, leave alone china.

It's like saying we'll let you have delhi, if you give us mumbai.... a laughable or actually a crooked proposition.

 

[Rocky25]

A bonus, defending Aksai chin was easy for China. J&K was already a disputed land.

India did NOT give that Bonus! Yes defending Askai Chin was easy for them... translates.. It is NOT easy for Arunachal Pradesh... That does NOT translate that they 'COULD' invade New Delhi!

AP was and is not recognised by UN as disputed, only by China. IMO it was made a dispute to increase India's pain. Also I read that China offered India to settle the whole issue but India declined.

This is what I think.. Some one can come and bash me

Neither was Askai Chin... We did NOT go to UN for this issue... If China considers that it is disputed then it is their job to settle... NOT UN... Also ALL settlement should be accepted by both parties if it was a negotiations.... Forced by one upon the other can happen only by WAR!

 

[SamantK]

china offered to do us a "favour" by settling the current line of actual control at Arunachal Pradesh border, only if India, agrees to giving them Aksai Chin.

India rightly refused, since Ladakh (Aksai chin is a part of Ladakh) was never a part of Tibet, leave alone china.

It's like saying we'll let you have delhi, if you give us mumbai.... a laughable or actually a crooked proposition.

No denying but India was not in a position to refuse militarily.. All I say is things could have been done differently..

India did NOT give that Bonus! Yes defending Askai Chin was easy for them... translates.. It is NOT easy for Arunachal Pradesh... That does NOT translate that they 'COULD' invade New Delhi!



Neither was Askai Chin... We did NOT go to UN for this issue... If China considers that it is disputed then it is their job to settle... NOT UN... Also ALL settlement should be accepted by both parties if it was a negotiations.... Forced by one upon the other can happen only by WAR!

When did I say they could capture New Delhi
We could not offer them a defence of Aksai chin and they took it.. We did not give them any bonus, they took one.
Aksai was already disputed and was easy, simple point.

 

[Rocky25]

When did I say they could capture New Delhi
We could not offer them a defence of Aksai chin and they took it.. We did not give them any bonus, they took one.
Aksai was already disputed and was easy, simple point.

You did NOT say, CPC did NOT say that, But the previous poster to whom I replied said that!

Chinese were stronger in 1962... But NOT that stronger to capture New Delhi!