Which one of your disputed borders has not seen the use of Force?
Disputed borders and the use of Military Force go hand in hand.
It has been the same way throughout human history.
When foreign soldiers launch an incursion deep into your territory, the standard procedure is to forcefully remove them.
If you are weak, you will jump up and down .. panic all sorts .... take stupid and random actions .. while clueless what to do ... and still you would lose your territory, get raped and laughed at.
Didn't china see that happen to it between 1937-45 ?
That's exactly where Sun Tzu got it wrong ... his "standard procedure" doesn't work.
While "Chanakya Niti" works .. which says,
have excessive strength .. so that you never need to use it.
And this is exactly what worked for India .. and achieved without a single soldier being mobilized. India Govt acted in a mature and measured fashion, fully in control of the situation. As they say, speak softly but carry a big stick.
The "tent" rolled back ... without any action in those weeks .. but a lot of action in years preceding those weeks... which includes outclassing PRC in conventional strength projectable on the field; development of redundant and multi-modal second strike nuclear capability; neutralization of PRC infra-build up (roads) with excessing air transports et al.
PRC was quick to realize ... India had ample capability to beat the $hit out of Xi Jingping right into his "den" in Beijing.
PRC (atleast those sitting in Beijing) are well aware, they can't use a nuclear blackmail against India, for they will be returned overwhelming destruction raining from the sky. (And btw.. if hongkong is seen to side with PRC, it's well within the circle of nuclear bombardment; so I'd say move your family to Xinjiang or Tibet if you see PRC trying such a thing - they are safer there than in HK).
Next, PRC also realized that India will well match up and exceed, if the escalation is conventional in nature. Any conventional build-up by PLA on the borders will easily be countered by aerial transport. In fact, once a conventional escalation is in place, the otherwise un-ecomonical "roads" china built will aid Indian armoured forces to drive deep into PRC. On the other hand, PLA can't do the same because India wasted no money on otherwise un-economical "roads" - so PLA will be stuck on the border itself.
(on the cheeky side, the air tranports - C-130s and Hal Dhruvs actually performed a great duty in flood relief in Uttarkhand ... rather than against PRC. So, wise not to build un-economical "roads" while develop a huge aerial transport capability, useful in civilian field as well. :laugh).
Escalation would have been bad for both PRC and India.. but more so for PRC. It would have come out worse in every possible scenarios, be it a hot war or a cold escalation.
And this was why you saw what happened to the "tent".
PRC will wiser to follow the route of talks. It
cannot change anything by force. The only thing that the incursions achieve is that they hurt the speed at which talks proceed, by increasing mistrust.
In any case, India will have patience .. while maintaining an overwhelming deterrence. Better PRC learn, what works and what doesn't.
))) yes ONLY india can afford to go to war not only with China but all its neighbours.
