Sino Indian Border

[Paul2]

I start this thread to discuss Sino Indian border. We start from the west and move east.

For Sino Indian border, China generally uses the watershed principles. Hence, most of her proposal see border drawing on mountain ridges.

For India, she has no principles. She proposes any fantasy or whimsical idea, even if it is a cartological error or cartological imperialism.

The first stretch of Sino Indian border dispute has nothing to do with India in reality. Pakistan negotiated a fair settlement based on the ridges and watershed of Karakorum ranges, dividing up K2.

But India claims Pakistani Kashmir. She proposes she owns the whole Karakorum, regardless of watershed.

The actual start of aggressive Indian claims goes to 1967, when Soviets told them to use creative cartography to frustrate Beijing, as a condition for Soviet aid.

It's 2020, no Soviet aid in sight, and they still haven't contemplated demarcating the border, despite having such chance during Deng, Jiang, and Hu.

 

[Song Hong]

General Zorawar Singh Kahluria then decided to invade Tibet proper, with the target of conquering -- Lhasa. He said land of Tibetan Ali belongs to Ladakh. Since Sikh conquered Ladakh, then Tibetan Ali belongs to Sikh.

To make things short, General Zorawar Singh Kahluria was defeated and killed around Lake Manasarovar by an army of Chinese and Tibetan.

 

[ChennaiDude]

scores ( numbers unconfirmed ) of Indian troops beaten to death.

point to ponder is that Chinese have only punched , clubbed and kicked the Indians

wonder how many they will kill once they start using firearms.

And you think Indians wont be using firearms?- India has confirmed the numbers- China has to yet confirm anything-Either Chinese are invincible and are super heroes or they are just plain lying - Take your pick!

 

[Jugger]

General Zorawar Singh Kahluria then decided to invade Tibet proper, with the target of conquering -- Lhasa. He said land of Tibetan Ali belongs to Ladakh. Since Sikh conquered Ladakh, then Tibetan Ali belongs to Sikh.

To make things short, General Zorawar Singh Kahluria was defeated and killed around Lake Manasarovar by an army of Chinese and Tibetan.

Indias claim over Aksai Chin is based on the conquest of these areas by the Sikh empire.
You are right on your assumptions that India had not ruled over these lands for long.

However at the time these areas were under Tibetan rule, China has no say in these matters as it forcefully occupied Tibet.

But then again as custodians of Tibet, China is taking actions similarly as custodians of the Sikh empire India is taking its own measures.

So India has equal right as China to claim these territories.

Being democratic has its advantages in such situations.

 

[Song Hong]

The Chinese Tibetan army marched to Leh, but failed to drive out the Sikh. They over-stretched themselves and was defeated. They regroup at Chushul where the last battle was fought.

Both Chinese and Indians claimed victory (likely a stalemate).

Nevertheless, the outcome of the war is Chinese loss Ladakh.

Meanwhile, Indians are shown incapable to project itself into Aksai Chin, Pangong and Ali.

The stalemate in Battle of Chushul is probably the main reason China decided to stop at the gate of Chushul in 1962. Then the Indians army of Chushul were waiting to be annihilated.

This shows China as a reasonable partner in terms of territory negotiation.

 

[Crusher]

We talk about how British and India suddenly came out with idea to claim Tibet.

This was the outcome of Kashmiri General Zorawar Singh Kahluria, conquest of West Tibet, now Ladakh and Leh in 1834, making it a vassal state, instead of direct rule.

This was already much later than Tibet as a Qing military protectorate since 1720. China's hold on Tibet was earlier than US independence.

So Ladakh and Leh could have belong to China.

In fact, British or Indian's hold on Karakoram and Himalaya regions came far later, and far less centralized than China's suzerainty of Tibet.

This guy wasn't a Kashmiri, however when Kashmir used to be an independent Sultanate under Shahmir Dynasty of Kashmir (1339-1560), Ladakh and Baltistan indeed used to be part of the kingdom of Kashmir. Here is an excerpt from a published reference that I just found now after I read your post.

source: https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijhcs/v1-i3/5.pdf

 

[Song Hong]

You can search on the topic Ladakh as a tributary states of Lhasa.

Reason why the Sikh from Jamu got to attack and subjugate it in 1834. It called Lhasa for help. And reason why Lhasa expeditionary force came to help to liberate Ladakh.

Ladakh did not invite help from Kashmiri and non of the Kashmiri states came to help Ladakh.

Ladakh has been paying taxes to Lhasa, not to anyone in Kashmir -- another evidence.

Only in 1834 things changed.

This guy wasn't a Kashmiri, however when Kashmir used to be an independent Sultanate under Shahmir Dynasty of Kashmir (1339-1560), Ladakh and Baltistan indeed used to be part of the kingdom of Kashmir. Here is an excerpt from a published reference that I just found now after I read your post.

View attachment 642782
source: https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijhcs/v1-i3/5.pdf

 

[Crusher]

You can search on the topic Ladakh as a tributary states of Lhasa.

Reason why the Sikh from Jamu got to attack and subjugate it in 1834. It called Lhasa for help. And reason why Lhasa expeditionary force came to help to liberate Ladakh.

Ladakh did not invite help from Kashmiri and non of the Kashmiri states came to help Ladakh.

Ladakh has been paying taxes to Lhasa, not to anyone in Kashmir -- another evidence.

Only in 1834 things changed.

What you are saying is also right that before 1834 Sikh advancement into Ladakh, it was paying tribute to Tibet, but what I have shown is that before that Ladakh has always been exchanging hands between Kashmir and Tibetan kingdoms throughout the history, that is the reason they look mixed race of Tibetan, Kashmiris and Gilgiti/Baltistani.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Constant border tension with neighbouring countries and even land grabbing invasion is also deep in their mindset a perfect measure to promote its internal unity,

Superb post. I totally agree.

 

[Song Hong]

Chushul is strictly speaking at the Pangong sector, a little South from Aksai Chin. The Sino Indian border run outside the gate of Chushul.

Chushul is controlled by India today. Chushul is a gift from China. PLA stopped attacking in 1962 just outside the gate of Chushul.

In reality Chushul and Indian Pangong is not defensible for Indians.

China could have taken the mountain pass around Nyoma village and entire Indian Pangong region will be cut off.

The 1842 stalemate of Battle of Chushul probably contributed significantly in China's decision of giving it to India.

 

[Song Hong]

We move north to see the Aksai Chin LAC.

Again India has over project herself. Instead of using ridges Karakoram range as the border, India went across the ridge. The Sino Indian LAC here follows the east bank of Shyok river.

India relies on one mountain pass to supply that could be cut off. Her army and supply cannot move across Karakoram range.

As we can see Galwan valley is a bad place to confront China. Indian army has to negotiate a big turn at Shyok valley and then move into yet another Galwan Valley.

On China side, there are plateau with ranges.

 

[Tresbon]

“There will be no conflict if Indian army does not enter our actual line of control”

A slice of history from the archives reveals that Beijing will be unyielding on the post-1962 status quo.
The Chinese have literally stuck to their guns since the 1962 border conflict when it comes to approaching a border settlement with India and reaching a common position on who sits where along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

A slice of history from the archives reveals that Beijing would be unyielding if India tried to disturb the post-1962 status quo, something that could shine a light on current border incidents with China.

Also Read | Beijing think-tank links scrapping of Article 370 to LAC tensions


In December 1963, a year after the November 1962 border conflict with India, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai told Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser that there would be “no conflict between the two sides if the Indian army does not again enter our actual line of control.”


At pains to explain Chinese actions to President Nasser, Mr. Zhou said about the post-war situation: “What is the outlook for the Sino-Indian border conflict? Frankly speaking, all is well for now. Since our side has taken the initiative of a ceasefire and such mitigation measures as initiating a withdrawal of 20 kilometres along the entire front line, there will be no conflict between the two sides if the Indian army does not again enter our actual line of control.”

Chinese assessment
Given the recent impasse along the LAC and fisticuffs between Indian and Chinese soldiers, Mr. Zhou’s dictum holds good — all would be well as long as the Indian side did not assert itself.

India, China must respect each other’s core concerns: Jaishankar

A record of the Zhou-Nasser conversation, available on the Wilson Center Digital Archive, showed the Chinese assessment of New Delhi’s position: “India’s attitude is: for the eastern border, we must accept the McMahon line; for the western border, India wants it where it has never been, an area where Chinese have been living for several hundred years and made their own.” Mr. Zhou claimed that he visited India three times – in 1954, 1956 and 1957 – but the Indian side never put forth any proposals.

Situation on borders with China under control: Army chief

In July 1962, Foreign Minister Marshal Chen Yi and Defence Minister Krishna Menon met in Geneva in a “situation where both sides were prepared to settle through discussion in maintaining the border status quo [both the eastern and western border were more to India’s advantage at that time than at present] and hold talks without conditions to resolve the issue”.

No agreement
“At the time we assumed that the Indian side could accept a negotiated agreement reached with us on the basis of maintaining the border status quo. But unexpectedly, Menon wanted our side first to demarcate several areas to give to him, commit them in advance, and then hold talks again. Because of this, the two sides did not come to an agreement,” Mr. Zhou told Mr. Nasser.

The Chinese side seems stuck on this even today – they have not agreed to share maps on their perception on the eastern and western sectors of LAC first at the Joint Working Group (JWG) mechanism at foreign secretary-level agreed upon during Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s path-breaking visit to Beijing in December 1988. Maps in the less contentious middle sector were shared at a JWG meeting in 2001.

In a major step-up, the two countries agreed to set up a dedicated mechanism at the level of Special Representatives (SRs) to resolve the border dispute during Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s China trip in June 2003. This superseded the JWG.

Though the SR mechanism led to a “guiding principles” agreement in 2005, the two countries are still to exchange maps on where each side is in the eastern and western sectors. “Advance demarcation” still appears to be a problem for the Chinese side, although the contours of a possible settlement referred to by Mr. Zhou is no longer Beijing’s official position.

Also Read |What explains the India-China border flare-up?

A pressing issue
Over the years, India and China have agreed on a number of mechanisms to enhance confidence at the military level, but their inability to agree to a border settlement have led to consistent problems – troops coming into conflict with each other – and continues to be a pressing issue.

Mercifully, there have been no fatalities on either side for the past 45 years – since the two countries restored full diplomatic relations in 1976.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/natio...ontrol/article31836317.ece?utm_source=taboola

 

[HalfMoon]

“There will be no conflict if Indian army does not enter our actual line of control”

A slice of history from the archives reveals that Beijing will be unyielding on the post-1962 status quo.
The Chinese have literally stuck to their guns since the 1962 border conflict when it comes to approaching a border settlement with India and reaching a common position on who sits where along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

A slice of history from the archives reveals that Beijing would be unyielding if India tried to disturb the post-1962 status quo, something that could shine a light on current border incidents with China.

Also Read | Beijing think-tank links scrapping of Article 370 to LAC tensions


In December 1963, a year after the November 1962 border conflict with India, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai told Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser that there would be “no conflict between the two sides if the Indian army does not again enter our actual line of control.”


At pains to explain Chinese actions to President Nasser, Mr. Zhou said about the post-war situation: “What is the outlook for the Sino-Indian border conflict? Frankly speaking, all is well for now. Since our side has taken the initiative of a ceasefire and such mitigation measures as initiating a withdrawal of 20 kilometres along the entire front line, there will be no conflict between the two sides if the Indian army does not again enter our actual line of control.”

Chinese assessment
Given the recent impasse along the LAC and fisticuffs between Indian and Chinese soldiers, Mr. Zhou’s dictum holds good — all would be well as long as the Indian side did not assert itself.

India, China must respect each other’s core concerns: Jaishankar

A record of the Zhou-Nasser conversation, available on the Wilson Center Digital Archive, showed the Chinese assessment of New Delhi’s position: “India’s attitude is: for the eastern border, we must accept the McMahon line; for the western border, India wants it where it has never been, an area where Chinese have been living for several hundred years and made their own.” Mr. Zhou claimed that he visited India three times – in 1954, 1956 and 1957 – but the Indian side never put forth any proposals.

Situation on borders with China under control: Army chief

In July 1962, Foreign Minister Marshal Chen Yi and Defence Minister Krishna Menon met in Geneva in a “situation where both sides were prepared to settle through discussion in maintaining the border status quo [both the eastern and western border were more to India’s advantage at that time than at present] and hold talks without conditions to resolve the issue”.

No agreement
“At the time we assumed that the Indian side could accept a negotiated agreement reached with us on the basis of maintaining the border status quo. But unexpectedly, Menon wanted our side first to demarcate several areas to give to him, commit them in advance, and then hold talks again. Because of this, the two sides did not come to an agreement,” Mr. Zhou told Mr. Nasser.

The Chinese side seems stuck on this even today – they have not agreed to share maps on their perception on the eastern and western sectors of LAC first at the Joint Working Group (JWG) mechanism at foreign secretary-level agreed upon during Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s path-breaking visit to Beijing in December 1988. Maps in the less contentious middle sector were shared at a JWG meeting in 2001.

In a major step-up, the two countries agreed to set up a dedicated mechanism at the level of Special Representatives (SRs) to resolve the border dispute during Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s China trip in June 2003. This superseded the JWG.

Though the SR mechanism led to a “guiding principles” agreement in 2005, the two countries are still to exchange maps on where each side is in the eastern and western sectors. “Advance demarcation” still appears to be a problem for the Chinese side, although the contours of a possible settlement referred to by Mr. Zhou is no longer Beijing’s official position.

Also Read |What explains the India-China border flare-up?

A pressing issue
Over the years, India and China have agreed on a number of mechanisms to enhance confidence at the military level, but their inability to agree to a border settlement have led to consistent problems – troops coming into conflict with each other – and continues to be a pressing issue.

Mercifully, there have been no fatalities on either side for the past 45 years – since the two countries restored full diplomatic relations in 1976.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/natio...ontrol/article31836317.ece?utm_source=taboola

After the Galwan beating, I am sure Indians will behave now.

 

[riscol]

Vietnamese too must learn to behave or same fate awaits them

 

[Daniel808]

Vietnamese too must learn to behave or same fate awaits them

Quote of the day