What's new

India must find a face-saving pretext and withdraw from Doklam

it has been 2 months since the standoff started. saving face is not an option for India now.
If Bhutan finally settled and sign the border agreement with China and Doklam becomes Chinese territories how would that make India look ?

It's best that India finds a way to withdraw. After that you can claimed you have stood up to China.
War will be averted. Nobody will die.
 
.
If Bhutan finally settled and sign the border agreement with China and Doklam becomes Chinese territories how would that make India look ?

It's best that India finds a way to withdraw. After that you can claimed you have stood up to China.
War will be averted. Nobody will die.
2 months and they are so eager to die....wait till our stuff are ready, they will be roasted chapati.
 
.
in my view, we actually controlled that area where we build road.
but bhutan also claimed doklam before we make 1998 agreement with bhutan.

expansion road indeed violate the agreement, if we dont get agreement from bhutan

that is only my view

if I am Xi, I will annouce to stop road constraction.
and give deadline to india, if india doesnt retreat, then war with india
very simple
 
Last edited:
.
India is in deep trouble and is cursing herself
India has given Pakistan power to invite anybody to their future dispute and we all know who that nation is so very well played India.
What ever is the reason nobody invited India and if invited also India should have just ssshus them .

in my view, we actually controlled that to area,
but bhutan also claimed doklam before we make 1998 agreement with bhutan.

expansion road indeed violate the agreement, if we dont get agreement from bhutan

that is only my view

if I am Xi, I will annouce to stop road constraction.
and give deadline to india, if india doesnt retreat, then war with india
very simple
 
.
For its part, Beijing wants Bhutan to remain as a sovereign buffer between China and India, and not as an Indian-controlled buffer.

Above is the key. Just like Nepal has been softened up Bhutan will also boot the Indian influence.

Could it be possible that the road Chinese are building is to connect Bhutan directly with China and hence Bhutan dependency on India is made redundant.
 
.
Could it be possible that the road Chinese are building is to connect Bhutan directly with China and hence Bhutan dependency on India is made redundant.
this planned 2 kilometer road expansion is toward bhutan zompelri army camp.
what ever the reason is, the 1998 agreement between china bhutan do exist.
In my view, we do need permission from bhutan to build road there.
 
.
India must find a face-saving pretext and withdraw from Doklam

Wangcha Sangey says Delhi’s interference in the border talks between Bhutan and China was intended to assert control over Bhutan. Having failed, it must pull back its troops, and leave the other two to conclude their talks


PUBLISHED : Monday, 14 August, 2017, 4:24pm

cid:image001.jpg@01D314E1.A5059540



India has to withdraw from Doklam. There is no alternative. War is neither a wise nor affordable choice.

The so-called “chicken neck” – the narrow valley that links India’s mainland with its northeast, and the apparent reason for its intervention in the Doklam row – was not and is not in any security danger.

The two countries that have claims over the disputed border in Doklam are Bhutan and China. Bhutan never wanted India to interfere with the Sino-Bhutan border talks. Indeed, Bhutan has never considered itself a “protectorate state”, neither of British Raj India nor the Republic of India.

India must stop trampling on Bhutan’s sovereignty
The 1949 treaty between Bhutan and India was simply a copy of the 1865 Sinchula treaty, imposed on Bhutan by a better-armed British India. At that time, Bhutan was following an isolationist policy and external affairs were irrelevant. Under the Sinchula treaty, British India took away some territories of Bhutan, including the “chicken neck”, in exchange for an annual cash payment to Bhutan to compensate for its lost revenue in taxes. Bhutan had to be content with that.

Over the years, however, Bhutan has become more open to the world.

In 1971, Bhutan became a member of the United Nations of its own free will – not under any advice from India. Before that, in 1962, Bhutan had joined the Colombo Plan – again with no advice from India. That year, Bhutan was invited to attend the committee meeting in Melbourne, Australia, as an observer. But the head of Bhutan’s delegation to the meeting, Ashi Tashi Dorji, the sister of then prime minister Jigme Palden Dorji, represented Bhutanese interests so well that Bhutan was invited to become a full member there and then.

In line with these developments, in 2007, Bhutan and India revised their 1949 treaty and removed two clauses: one, that Bhutan foreign affairs would no longer be guided by India, and two, that India no longer has to make an annual payment to Bhutan. Thus, India agreed to refrain from interfering in Bhutan’s foreign affairs, and Bhutan absolved India from the annuity payment.

India acted rashly at Doklam and is now keen to withdraw. I believe its objective was to assert control over Bhutan, and did not intend it as an act of military defiance against China. For its part, Beijing wants Bhutan to remain as a sovereign buffer between China and India, and not as an Indian-controlled buffer.


Having failed in its initial objective, India does not wish to aggravate the crisis with China. But how can the Indian government stand down without being attacked by the opposition parties in Parliament? The ideal solution is for India to withdraw and claim that Bhutanese troops are replacing Indian forces at the disputed site. If India made such a claim, Bhutan would neither deny nor confirm it, even though on the ground it is not possible for Bhutan to replace Indian troops at the Chinese-controlled territory in Doklam.

Perhaps to ease India’s embarrassment, Bhutan could double its deployment at the Zom Pelri outpost, from around 10 soldiers now to 20 soldiers. This arrangement could last through the winter, with numbers dropping back to normal next spring. Bhutan cannot waste its army resources on an unimportant task.

This is something India has to do for itself. Bhutan cannot be the one saying its troops would replace Indian soldiers in Doklam, as such a statement would be tantamount to confirming Bhutan is a protectorate state of India, which it is not.

Bhutan is not anti-India; it simply wants to close the border deal with China and have a proper relationship with Beijing, in line with its own national interests. Both neighbours are important to Bhutan, but neither is an overlord of Bhutan.

Wangcha Sangey is a well-known blogger in Bhutan

India-China stand-off: The truth from the Dragon's mouth

On August 1, Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China, chairman of the Central Military Commission and president of the People's Republic of China, presided over a grand function to celebrate the 90th founding anniversary of the People's Liberation Army, PLA.

From the rostrum of the Great Hall of People, he solemnly affirmed: 'The Chinese people love peace. We will never seek aggression or expansion, but we have the confidence to defeat all invasions. We will never allow any people, organization or political party to split any part of Chinese territory from the country at any time, in any form.'

The message was probably for India.

He urged the PLA to focus on war preparedness and forge an elite and powerful force that 'is always ready for the fight, capable of combat and sure to win.'

'All thoughts must be put on combat, and all work should focus on combat so the military can assemble, charge forward and win any time,' he said.

Meanwhile, the standoff continues on the ridge near the tri-junction of Tibet-Bhutan and Sikkim; for nearly two months, Indian and Chinese soldiers have faced-off here.

A day after Xi's speech, the Chinese government released a note titled: The Facts and China's Position Concerning the Indian Border Troops' Crossing of the China-India Boundary in the Sikkim Sector into the Chinese Territory.

There was nothing new in the note though most surprisingly, Beijing has ignored the Bhutanese and Indian notes released on June 29 and 30 respectively. It did not answer Thimphu's and Delhi's arguments.

However, the ministry of foreign affairs spokesperson in Beijing continued to insist on the 'unequal' treaty of 1890 (signed without the knowledge of the Tibetans), forgetting other agreements of 1895, 1904, 1908 and more importantly the Simla Convention of 1914, to which China had participated during several months.

In this context, it is interesting to look at a book, containing Chinese Intelligence maps, which was recently published.

Written by Ben Keiler (probably a nom de plume), it is titled Spying Against India (Chinese Military Intelligence from 1962 to 2012) Volume 1 and available on Amazon Kindle (external link).

07chineseclaims1.jpg


Though it is difficult to verify the veracity of the content, it complements a map that's been circulating on Bhutanese Web sites.

A chapter entitled: The Western Territories of Bhutan explains that the above map is a copy of a Top Secret Chinese Intelligence map.

The copy was probably published to hide the embarrassing fact (for China) that Beijing knew that there were Indian and Bhutanese camps inside the area, which is today so vociferously claimed by China.

The book Spying Against India reproduces the original maps, along with the translation of the accompanying texts and provides its own comments.

The text on this map translates to:

'Luling (also called Ru-ling) area is located on southeast of the Rinchengang town, in the lower part of the Dro-mo (Lower Chumbi Valley).'

'The area includes some of the small rivers in the east of Dromo Machu, Charthang river and Luling river.'

'The size of the area is around 340 sq km, and there are more than 40 grasslands (pastures).'

'The source (of income) comes from the products of the forest; it is pretty marvelous.'

'According to some historical documents, before 1843, China put border stone pillars on the hill of Ha-la, which is the source of the Luling River.' (My note: Nobody has ever heard of these 'pillars').

'The western part of the Ha-la Mountain's range was in the past the pastoral area of the nomads of the Dro-mo (Chumbi).'

'In 1954, the Bhutanese army permanently settled at Charthang for the whole year. There were around 100 troops occupying the area.'

'In 1960, the Bhutanese soldiers came again and set up an observation post at Ha-rar with more than 20 soldiers. There were sent from the pasture ground of Charthang.'

'In 1973, the people of the Dro-mo (Chumbi) restored their control over the border area and managed to send their animals grazing like before in the upland region of Lang-ma.'

'Moreover, in 1975, we (China) established a forest park in the Langma's upland.'

'In 1983, we (China) set up a civil administration.'

'Now, the soldiers and nomads of Bhutan do not enter the lower part of Lang-ma's upland grassland by crossing the Phu-tren pass as before.'

***

map59.jpg


This particular Chinese Intelligence map provides an overview of the disputed areas in Western Bhutan with textual 'classified' explanations.

The map is said to have been compiled by Chinese intelligence some 30 years ago.

The original maps with the positions of the Bhutanese and Indian armies were obviously not published in China, as they contradict Beijing's version of the historical background of the present standoff with India near the trijunction.

The above map provides the details of the previous map.

The present standoff between the PLA and Indian Army is taking place in the southern part of the map.

The legend for the map is interesting:

The top text shows what the Chinese consider the international border.

The second text is what India and Bhutan consider as the location of the border.

The third is the 'illegal' McMahon Line (in Eastern Bhutan, not shown on this particular map)

The fact that this area is shown in a separate colour (green), along with the captions, clearly demonstrates that the area was already disputed 30 years ago.

Yet today, China pretends that the area has always been Chinese territory!

***

07map67.jpg


This map, marked Document 67, shows that the royal army of Bhutan and the Indian Army were in control of the area in the 1980s. The key to the map is:

Blue circle: Permanent base of the Royal Bhutan Army

Blue triangle outlined: Observation post of the Royal Bhutan Army

Blue triangle: Checkpoint of the Royal Bhutan Army

Light brown circle: Indian Army base.

Not a single post occupied by the Chinese army is marked; the PLA was nowhere to be seen 30 years ago.

These facts contradict the Chinese propaganda: As admitted by Chinese intelligence, Beijing never maintained any army base, customs office or other government function in that area until 1983.

Further, according to Spying Against India:

'If we go to the map (marked) as Doc 67 (above), we see the 1987 reality as reported by Chinese military intelligence: There are four bases by the Bhutanese army and one by the Indian Army in that area alone. Those bases are located along the border and there is not one single Chinese base.'

The author of the book further comments:

'First no Tibetan from Yatung (in the Chumbi Valley) or any other Chinese lived there or even went there.'

'After some 20 years after the arrival of the Chinese army in Yatung, they start to send local Tibetans as 'nomads' with their cattle into that area to stake a claim. If those Tibetans are not expelled for some 10 years, they open a small civil administration post, which could be only an unmarked tent operated during summer.'

'Again if that civil administration station is not demolished they start to make propaganda to claim this area has been Chinese territory since ancient times.'

Perhaps more interesting is the Chinese description of the place where the conflict is presently going on. Here is the translation of the text:

'Tunglang (Doklang) area is located in the south, moreover the valley of Tunglang river is an area of more than 100 sq km.'

'Northern parts of that area are plain with lots of lakes and there are more than 30 small and big grassland.'

'Southeast are mostly forest with steep mountains and deep valley.'

'According to the historical documents, Tunglang grassland is the summer pastoral area of the people of Lower Dro-mo (Lower Chumbi) region, and the army of India and Bhutan both are not entering into the Tung lang area. They just observed the nomads and people from a big stone'

'From 1975, China's armies went around very carefully, almost once every year. .'

'Generally after we (the Chinese) reached near to the Lhamasi through Shismo, we [China] returned back.'

'In 1983, the boundary line of our observation was expanded towards the south and later it was getting nearer to the observation post of the Bhutanese army in Dung-Tsona in South of Trae grassland.'

The author of the book rightly notes:

'The names and areas of those disputed territories are not identical in China and Bhutan. Therefore, if the Chinese talk about Tonglang it's not identical in size and geographical location to what the Bhutanese and Indians called Doklam.'

He points out at the contradiction in the Chinese intelligence documents:

'A second and different Chinese story appears is in Doc 67 where Chinese intelligence marks one base of the Bhutanese army clearly inside that very area and two more at the border.'

***

07map70.jpg


The book Spying Against India also says that in Doc 70, we can see the deployment of Bhutanese and Indian army units in western Bhutan in 1987.

The first battalion of the Bhutanese army defended the area close to the border with Sikkim.

'In that location they made sure the Chinese army could not take any shortcut through Bhutanese territory and cut-off and encircle the Indian border defence in the northern areas of Sikkim.'

'The 2nd, 3rd and 5th battalions were positioned to defend the area between Yatung and the capital Thimphu.'

'The 6th battalion serves as reserve force and can be deployed in any direction. The Indian troops are intermixed with the Royal army of Bhutan to strengthen the defence but also to make sure the Chinese army cannot enter any area of Bhutan without fighting the Indian Army. This mix makes sure the Chinese cannot only target the Bhutanese army and grab more land without killing Indian soldiers.'

This was in 1987.

reference:
http://www.rediff.com/news/special/...the-truth-from-the-dragons-mouth/20170810.htm
 
.
India-China stand-off: The truth from the Dragon's mouth

On August 1, Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China, chairman of the Central Military Commission and president of the People's Republic of China, presided over a grand function to celebrate the 90th founding anniversary of the People's Liberation Army, PLA.

From the rostrum of the Great Hall of People, he solemnly affirmed: 'The Chinese people love peace. We will never seek aggression or expansion, but we have the confidence to defeat all invasions. We will never allow any people, organization or political party to split any part of Chinese territory from the country at any time, in any form.'

The message was probably for India.

He urged the PLA to focus on war preparedness and forge an elite and powerful force that 'is always ready for the fight, capable of combat and sure to win.'

'All thoughts must be put on combat, and all work should focus on combat so the military can assemble, charge forward and win any time,' he said.

Meanwhile, the standoff continues on the ridge near the tri-junction of Tibet-Bhutan and Sikkim; for nearly two months, Indian and Chinese soldiers have faced-off here.

A day after Xi's speech, the Chinese government released a note titled: The Facts and China's Position Concerning the Indian Border Troops' Crossing of the China-India Boundary in the Sikkim Sector into the Chinese Territory.

There was nothing new in the note though most surprisingly, Beijing has ignored the Bhutanese and Indian notes released on June 29 and 30 respectively. It did not answer Thimphu's and Delhi's arguments.

However, the ministry of foreign affairs spokesperson in Beijing continued to insist on the 'unequal' treaty of 1890 (signed without the knowledge of the Tibetans), forgetting other agreements of 1895, 1904, 1908 and more importantly the Simla Convention of 1914, to which China had participated during several months.

In this context, it is interesting to look at a book, containing Chinese Intelligence maps, which was recently published.

Written by Ben Keiler (probably a nom de plume), it is titled Spying Against India (Chinese Military Intelligence from 1962 to 2012) Volume 1 and available on Amazon Kindle (external link).

07chineseclaims1.jpg


Though it is difficult to verify the veracity of the content, it complements a map that's been circulating on Bhutanese Web sites.

A chapter entitled: The Western Territories of Bhutan explains that the above map is a copy of a Top Secret Chinese Intelligence map.

The copy was probably published to hide the embarrassing fact (for China) that Beijing knew that there were Indian and Bhutanese camps inside the area, which is today so vociferously claimed by China.

The book Spying Against India reproduces the original maps, along with the translation of the accompanying texts and provides its own comments.

The text on this map translates to:

'Luling (also called Ru-ling) area is located on southeast of the Rinchengang town, in the lower part of the Dro-mo (Lower Chumbi Valley).'

'The area includes some of the small rivers in the east of Dromo Machu, Charthang river and Luling river.'

'The size of the area is around 340 sq km, and there are more than 40 grasslands (pastures).'

'The source (of income) comes from the products of the forest; it is pretty marvelous.'

'According to some historical documents, before 1843, China put border stone pillars on the hill of Ha-la, which is the source of the Luling River.' (My note: Nobody has ever heard of these 'pillars').

'The western part of the Ha-la Mountain's range was in the past the pastoral area of the nomads of the Dro-mo (Chumbi).'

'In 1954, the Bhutanese army permanently settled at Charthang for the whole year. There were around 100 troops occupying the area.'

'In 1960, the Bhutanese soldiers came again and set up an observation post at Ha-rar with more than 20 soldiers. There were sent from the pasture ground of Charthang.'

'In 1973, the people of the Dro-mo (Chumbi) restored their control over the border area and managed to send their animals grazing like before in the upland region of Lang-ma.'

'Moreover, in 1975, we (China) established a forest park in the Langma's upland.'

'In 1983, we (China) set up a civil administration.'

'Now, the soldiers and nomads of Bhutan do not enter the lower part of Lang-ma's upland grassland by crossing the Phu-tren pass as before.'

***

map59.jpg


This particular Chinese Intelligence map provides an overview of the disputed areas in Western Bhutan with textual 'classified' explanations.

The map is said to have been compiled by Chinese intelligence some 30 years ago.

The original maps with the positions of the Bhutanese and Indian armies were obviously not published in China, as they contradict Beijing's version of the historical background of the present standoff with India near the trijunction.

The above map provides the details of the previous map.

The present standoff between the PLA and Indian Army is taking place in the southern part of the map.

The legend for the map is interesting:

The top text shows what the Chinese consider the international border.

The second text is what India and Bhutan consider as the location of the border.

The third is the 'illegal' McMahon Line (in Eastern Bhutan, not shown on this particular map)

The fact that this area is shown in a separate colour (green), along with the captions, clearly demonstrates that the area was already disputed 30 years ago.

Yet today, China pretends that the area has always been Chinese territory!

***

07map67.jpg


This map, marked Document 67, shows that the royal army of Bhutan and the Indian Army were in control of the area in the 1980s. The key to the map is:

Blue circle: Permanent base of the Royal Bhutan Army

Blue triangle outlined: Observation post of the Royal Bhutan Army

Blue triangle: Checkpoint of the Royal Bhutan Army

Light brown circle: Indian Army base.

Not a single post occupied by the Chinese army is marked; the PLA was nowhere to be seen 30 years ago.

These facts contradict the Chinese propaganda: As admitted by Chinese intelligence, Beijing never maintained any army base, customs office or other government function in that area until 1983.

Further, according to Spying Against India:

'If we go to the map (marked) as Doc 67 (above), we see the 1987 reality as reported by Chinese military intelligence: There are four bases by the Bhutanese army and one by the Indian Army in that area alone. Those bases are located along the border and there is not one single Chinese base.'

The author of the book further comments:

'First no Tibetan from Yatung (in the Chumbi Valley) or any other Chinese lived there or even went there.'

'After some 20 years after the arrival of the Chinese army in Yatung, they start to send local Tibetans as 'nomads' with their cattle into that area to stake a claim. If those Tibetans are not expelled for some 10 years, they open a small civil administration post, which could be only an unmarked tent operated during summer.'

'Again if that civil administration station is not demolished they start to make propaganda to claim this area has been Chinese territory since ancient times.'

Perhaps more interesting is the Chinese description of the place where the conflict is presently going on. Here is the translation of the text:

'Tunglang (Doklang) area is located in the south, moreover the valley of Tunglang river is an area of more than 100 sq km.'

'Northern parts of that area are plain with lots of lakes and there are more than 30 small and big grassland.'

'Southeast are mostly forest with steep mountains and deep valley.'

'According to the historical documents, Tunglang grassland is the summer pastoral area of the people of Lower Dro-mo (Lower Chumbi) region, and the army of India and Bhutan both are not entering into the Tung lang area. They just observed the nomads and people from a big stone'

'From 1975, China's armies went around very carefully, almost once every year. .'

'Generally after we (the Chinese) reached near to the Lhamasi through Shismo, we [China] returned back.'

'In 1983, the boundary line of our observation was expanded towards the south and later it was getting nearer to the observation post of the Bhutanese army in Dung-Tsona in South of Trae grassland.'

The author of the book rightly notes:

'The names and areas of those disputed territories are not identical in China and Bhutan. Therefore, if the Chinese talk about Tonglang it's not identical in size and geographical location to what the Bhutanese and Indians called Doklam.'

He points out at the contradiction in the Chinese intelligence documents:

'A second and different Chinese story appears is in Doc 67 where Chinese intelligence marks one base of the Bhutanese army clearly inside that very area and two more at the border.'

***

07map70.jpg


The book Spying Against India also says that in Doc 70, we can see the deployment of Bhutanese and Indian army units in western Bhutan in 1987.

The first battalion of the Bhutanese army defended the area close to the border with Sikkim.

'In that location they made sure the Chinese army could not take any shortcut through Bhutanese territory and cut-off and encircle the Indian border defence in the northern areas of Sikkim.'

'The 2nd, 3rd and 5th battalions were positioned to defend the area between Yatung and the capital Thimphu.'

'The 6th battalion serves as reserve force and can be deployed in any direction. The Indian troops are intermixed with the Royal army of Bhutan to strengthen the defence but also to make sure the Chinese army cannot enter any area of Bhutan without fighting the Indian Army. This mix makes sure the Chinese cannot only target the Bhutanese army and grab more land without killing Indian soldiers.'

This was in 1987.

reference:
http://www.rediff.com/news/special/...the-truth-from-the-dragons-mouth/20170810.htm
it is true,but the trouble is not about the area is disputed or not.
dispute is between china and bhutan
and bhutan havent asked indian to come there.not publicly.

the following prozess could be
first step we tell bhutan ,we annouce stop road constraction there,show friendly face to bhutan
second bhutan /china ask indian to leave,
if indian dont leave, xi give deadline of military solution. and we will see
 
. . . . .
Old traditions die hard.

big boss need gain reputation before the 19th ccp national congress.more important than everything. I think the he will solve the standoff before november before the 19th cpc congress.
to old tradtion, no bullet fire between china and india border since decades, this tradition will not die in my view
 
Last edited:
.
Chinese still crying....India is on there so called territory and they calling India to evacuate its troops save face.Retard mentality....Come to table.Negotiate...back to lac before June 2017...simple
 
.
dispute is between china and bhutan
Don't be Hypocritical. India was always part of any discussion of border dispute between Bhutan and China.

That's how it works. To make sure that Bhutan won't get overpowered by expansionist China.

Now, if the Dispute is between Bhutan and China. Bhutan army requested Indian army presence. So, you can shovel up the argument that issue being bilateral.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom