To all Indian members here. A question...

[CardSharp]

Naive to believe in your big mouth media,If China want to "invade" "Indian land",she would did in 1962
Strategic focus of China is Taiwan ,South sea and North Kerea，and India is not in the Top 5 focus~~May be that’s called “some Indian Aggression paranoia”

Let's not flog the same dead horse in this thread. No one's pride is at stake here, just say what you think. No need to defend one's honour here.

 

[CardSharp]

No offence intended, but then, it is more of a factual statement than a question to be frank. What it means is, the troops had to be pulled back from the theatre, because there was no way they could hold land, deprived of the basics. The logistic tail had stretched too long and thus had completely collapsed. An army fights on its belly and belly crawlers can't fight with zero food, water and ammo when the enemy is zeroing on you afresh.

Of course, you are perfectly correct. The assertion by some chinese that two divisions of the PLA could have fought its way into Delhi is ridiculous. Logistics over the Himalayas is extremely difficult especially for a then low tech PLA.

 

[deltacamelately]

Sir, the reasons are rather obvious: That Army had achieved most of its objectives (which were not unlimited).

That objective was the propaganda victory.

Hence that Army withdrew. Withdrawal is also a valid military tactic.Hope that helps.

Only if the retreat is envisaged as a tactic to advance at a latter date. In absence of such, it is equivalent of a military defeat.

To quote a retired Canadian Army Colonel, an ethenic Han Chinese, "The PLA won a propaganda victory and met a military defeat."

 

[Joe Shearer]

Does anyone here think Goa and the sentiment of the time played any role in how things escalated? Some sources I've read on the web say that India was riding high on a wave of nationalism and the Nehru was only forced to react to things the press said. I don't know much about Indian modern history so can someone give their thoughts?

Dear Sir,

That must have been a factor. It is moot how much it was an influence, and to what degree.

Consider the facts. Salazar's Portugal was still in possession of vast colonies, in Angola and Mozambique. It was 'Britain's oldest ally', going back to Peninsular War days, but in some senses, even earlier. It had some force in Goa, and hoped that a holding action against the despised Asiatics would give them enough time to rouse the Security Council.

None of this worked. Alizes and Seahawks swept over Goa, the Albuquerque was sunk and Portuguese forces went down like ninepins in front of Indian troops. And, in a prequel to later years, the population (some significant part of it anyway) cried themselves hoarse welcoming the victorious liberators.

In spite of the element of highway brigandage of which the whole episode smacked, there was an upsurge of nationalistic fervour in India. Sardar Patel had 'integrated' Hyderabad by force before he died; this was Nehru's victory, and his alone. There was no competition.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Goa 61 added to Nehru's hubris and may have been a potent factor in bringing about the debacle that followed. The Government of India's press releases were avidly read in newspaper headlines from 1959 onwards, and people waited breathlessly for another Goa, or at least, a firm and resolute defence. What followed was shocking.

It is doubtful, however, if Nehru was pushed into this mess by public opinion. It is likelier that he, and the Government with him, painted themselves into a corner, and couldn't get out.

Sincerely,

 

[Capt.Popeye]

"And I think he is at the crux of the matter. This conflict goes beyond mere facts and the psychological implications of the conflict matters much much much more than who possessed a strip of frozen highland or even how many died on each side."
@ CardSharp
This part of Indian History; painful as it might seem in some aspects was a watershed in creation of Indian policies and direction. India really woke up into the Modern World in some sense (realpolitik et al.)
The resurgent India that everybody can see today owes something to that episode of history. The younger Indians on this forum; and i daresay they are many, would do well to remember that.
All in all, IMHO that period pushed us into the fastest 'growing up' phase, post-independence.

 

[CardSharp]

This part of Indian History; painful as it might seem in some aspects was a watershed in creation of Indian policies and direction. India really woke up into the Modern World in some sense (realpolitik et al.)
The resurgent India that everybody can see today owes something to that episode of history. The younger Indians on this forum; and i daresay they are many, would do well to remember that.
All in all, IMHO that period pushed us into the fastest 'growing up' phase, post-independence.

Great point. Do you think this naiveté can be attributed to British rule?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Great point. Do you think this naiveté can be attributed to British rule?
@CardSharp
i do not think so. There was some sort of 'hang-over' that remained post independence. The then Indian leadership had a rather idealistic world-view (with some justification). They had been 'born into a blissful dawn' (of freedom) after all. Indeed they believed that the whole world (which was coming out of WW 2) could only collectively dream of a better future. Which was fine. The only point was that different personalities at the helm of affairs then, had different views on how to achieve that. The 'Great Helmsman' Mao's view was radically different from that of the 'Great Dreamer' Nehru. (i do'nt intend that to be derogatory of either personality- please understand that). The 'Great Helmsman' was an extremely 'Great Realist' till he lost his touch (and may be his "marbles"). Mao was determined to ensure that his creation would become strong enough to remain in perpetuity. Therefore his policies (with his neighbours) were intended to consolidate the territory required to achieve that end. In short, it was an 'expansionist' and 'imperialist' policy; but necessary to achieve what he desired. While Nehru remained in his state of hubris (or was it bliss).

 

[KS]

To me the Indo-China war of 1962 was really a blessing in disguise and an eye opener to the Nehru who was once contemplating disbanding the Indian army as we were a non-violent nation.

It brought sense into him and it was only after that the modernisation of the Indian army was taken up in a full swing and we were able to save our skins and our territory 3 years later and divide a nation into 2 halves 9 years later.

 

[chauism]

Dear Sir,

It is regrettable that the vast majority of us Indians have been kept in the dark, and ill-served both by our government and by our intellectuals with regard to the differences with China. Perhaps a good way to address these issues would be to start with your enclosed article, and to comment it suitably.



This only is the beginning of the deception. The facts are that for decades, more than a century, the nearby imperial powers, Czarist Russia and Imperial Britain, had acknowledged China's suzerainty over Tibet. The facts are that China had not been consulted either during the establishment of the line in the west, nor during the establishment of the line in the east. Of the two, the demarcation in the east was the worse of the two, and consisted of an arbitrary line drawn by Mr. MacMahon on the map, representing the watershed of the Himalayan ridges. He did this against the instructions of the British government in India. But let us go on.

It is really sad and ultimately pathetic that the fundamental problem of border boundary demarcation between China and India is an arbitrary line that was drawn up in 1914 on a map on the scale of 8 miles to the inch with a thick nib dipped in red ink by a British colonist. Why can't both nation come to an agreement on their own terms. Of course there was no historical agreements or treaties between the two nations to speak of, but both are nations that are capable of ration thinking and their civilizations have survived for thousands of years. Relying on something imperial colonist had drew seems really not acceptable to me as a best way to settle this problem. Considering what they have caused everytime when they leave their colonies, you will understand what I am getting at.

Brahm Chellaney's account reads like bad propaganda, and is bad propaganda. Nehru accepted Chinese occupation of Tibet; he did not confirm the boundary with China, not because China offered no opportunity, but because he sought more than China was offering.

On the other hand, Noorani assessed the situation correctly and described Nehru's activities in greater frankness.

This (the publication of the official map with a firm boundary in the west, in unilateral supersession of the previous correct position) is factual, and was a falsehood by Nehru and the External Affairs Ministry.

China rejects the MacMahon Line but is prepared to treat it as the LAC but without the extra areas north of it which India claims belong to it on a true "interpretation" of the Line. Nehru said on September 12, 1959: "In some parts, in the Subansiri or somewhere there, it was not considered a good line and it was varied by us." This was done, he explained later, to "give effect to the treaty map in the area, based on definitive topography" - the watershed principle. This is legitimate if done by consent; unilateral redrawing is not.

Of course Zhou Enlai had his fault that he let Nehru believe that there was really no border problem except for some "petty issues" which could be resolved by officials at lower levels. However if Nehru were just to spent little more time to understand the Chinese leadship a little better, Zhou was only putting the issues of China-India border aside for the future generations of leadship to resolve rather than those war hardened leaders who just fought off imperial colonists and invaders in the last decades. Border issues were never "petty issues" to them. It was a very important issue of legitimacy of PRC government over its control of China. Any wrong doing in their part will be a sign of weakness of its ability to keep China's integrity as comparing to ROC. This was a mistake they could not afford to make. You can check ROC's claim of China's border just for reference. But then Nehru just had to be impatient and declared in parliament that India regarded the McMahon Line as its official border when China only treats it as LAC.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I would like to draw the attention of members to this article. It is complex, but rewarding if read with care. It says in effect:

1. Facts which do not agree with our preconceived notions tend to strengthen those notions; we resist the facts and cling on to our notions;
2. Sometimes, however, facts do change people's minds. This happens when the subject is confronted by the researcher directly, interactively (you can ask them questions or interact with them), and can be seen to happen.

Enjoy:

how_facts_backfire

Thanks and credit goes to member 'chauism' for drawing attention to this.

 

[flyinfishjoe]

To me the Indo-China war of 1962 was really a blessing in disguise and an eye opener to the Nehru who was once contemplating disbanding the Indian army as we were a non-violent nation.

It brought sense into him and it was only after that the modernisation of the Indian army was taken up in a full swing and we were able to save our skins and our territory 3 years later and divide a nation into 2 halves 9 years later.

I completely agree! Although we lost territory and lives, we learned a very important lesson!

 

[footmarks]

No,history of wars(not even World wars) has not been discussed in Indian school textbooks.In fact,modern China or Pakistan has rarely ever been mentioned.

Any general Indian is oblivious about the 1962 war.

I myself came to know about it when i came across some Chinese and Indians fighting about it on youtube.(same for wars with Pakistan).

Though you are right in terms of China & pak related wars & conflicts which do not find much place in our history books, but I still remember- all past wars, including that F&@Kng Panipat ki ladai (pata nai kitni baar hui, 'sann' i.e. timeline yaad karte karte waat lag jaaya karti thi hamaari), and world wars were part of our history books when I was a student.Ironically, if i correctly remember (and hope now its updated and corrected), Hindi-Chini Bhai-bhai was still very much the theme of our China related topics in history books (there was a slight mention of war of'62, just a few paragraphs maybe).

 

[CardSharp]

I would like to draw the attention of members to this article. It is complex, but rewarding if read with care. It says in effect:

1. Facts which do not agree with our preconceived notions tend to strengthen those notions; we resist the facts and cling on to our notions;
2. Sometimes, however, facts do change people's minds. This happens when the subject is confronted by the researcher directly, interactively (you can ask them questions or interact with them), and can be seen to happen.

Enjoy:

how_facts_backfire

Thanks and credit goes to member 'chauism' for drawing attention to this.

I'm right there with you Mr. Shearer. I was going to post something like this eventually.

This is from the psychology textbook "Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory: Rüdiger F Pohl"

"Imagine that you are presenting two scientific studies on the effectiveness of the death penalty to people opposed to it and to people in support of it. One of the studies you present supports the conclusion that the death penalty has a deterrent effect, and thus lowers the crime rate. The other study contradicts the effectiveness of the death penalty.

How will research findings that either confirm or deny the death penalty's deterrent effects be judged, and what impact will they have on the supporters and opponents of death penalty?


The experiment demonstrated, participants gave higher ratings to the study that supported their own opinion, while pointing to shortcomings in the research that questioned their point of view. This kind of confirmation bias led to the remarkable outcome that participants were even more convinced of their original opinion after reading both studies than before."

 

[footmarks]

I'm right there with you Mr. Shearer. I was going to post something like this eventually.

This is from the psychology textbook "Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory: Rüdiger F Pohl"

"Imagine that you are presenting two scientific studies on the effectiveness of the death penalty to people opposed to it and to people in support of it. One of the studies you present supports the conclusion that the death penalty has a deterrent effect, and thus lowers the crime rate. The other study contradicts the effectiveness of the death penalty.

How will research findings that either confirm or deny the death penalty's deterrent effects be udged, and what impact will they have on the supporters and opponents of death penalty?


The experiment demonstrated, participants gave higher ratings to the study that supported their own opinion, while pointing to shortcomings in the research that questioned their point of view. This kind of confirmation bias led to the remarkable outcome that participants were even more convinced of their original opinion after reading both studies than before."

True, confirmation bias is something which we encounter every moment here in PDF. people having a certain POV will selectively search for and present data and reports which supports their own POV and oppose any other POV vehemently even if it was published in the same site/magazine where the article which they presented was published.That's why it is so much important to ensure truth, humility and values are taught at very early stage to the child so that he/she can have a correct POV while he/she is growing old.

Entirely off topic but, its the same reason why education, especially girl's education is so important in today's society. an educated mother can instill good, moral and liberal values in her child and he/she will develop a positive, liberal and independent POV.And confirmation bias will ensure that he/she will remain positive, liberal, independent thinker rather than being a conformist and fundamantalist.

 

[gogbot]

What was the sequence of event that lead to the war?

Well , both sides were to blame for fostering up the tensions to begin with.

China's Controversial takeover of Tibet

And India's own forward policy.

While people may feel differently about both, they are two sides of the same coin.

One would expect the Conflict would have arisen when both these aggressive actions collided.

China fresh from Claiming/re-claiming Tibet , right after a war with the UN over Korea.

India reclaiming Goa, absorbing Hyderabad and Sikhim.

The only other way it could have ended is if one of the Sides backed down.

Both nation , were willing to fight for land they believed was theirs.
It was undeniably Nehru's folly for not seeing that.

Was the 1962 war a result of China stabbing India in the back?

People often say , China stabbed us in the back.

But we never had any kind of agreement or understanding with China , That held China to any kind of accord or Friendship.

China did stab us in the Back, But it was out fault for Turning our back in the first place.

Was Nehru's fault?

Unquestionably, He should have seen the war coming, Generals pleased with him to move troops from Pakistan to Chinese border area's. His unfounded belief that Mao would not strike cost us Dearly

China did offer some good concessions. And in retrospect Nehru should have accepted. But At the Time India had just as much right to claim the land as China did. It would have been seen as utter weakness on part of the government to accept any deal , that meant India would loose any land.

Given the Situation , Nehru should have prepared for the Inevitable , war.

Does anyone here think Goa and the sentiment of the time played any role in how things escalated?

Yes , more so then you can imagine.

Some sources I've read on the web say that India was riding high on a wave of nationalism and the Nehru was only forced to react to things the press said. I don't know much about Indian modern history so can someone give their thoughts?

You have to understand , that India after 1945 was a deeply divided state , the British Left Behind India , Pakistan and whole list of Princely states(Kashmir , Sikhim , Hyderabad) with Neither alliance to India or Pakistan and last Portuguese occupied Goa .

Indian Independence called for freed from European Rule to all of India
this included Goa, after years of protracted negotiations with Portugal yielded no success. India took Goa by force, This created an Upset in the Western world , which nearly passed a UNSC resolution against India, If it had not been for Russian veto.

Elsewhere around the world , especially in former European colonies , the action was greeted with much support.

If anything By taking Goa , India had gained far more then it would have ever lost.Hyderbad was also taken , Sikhim even voluntarily joined the Federation.

Kashmir was in Dispute , but we controlled the majority.

In the eyes of may Indians, India was surely but steadily becoming whole again.Nationalism was naturally very high.

The political atmosphere at the time , would never have allowed for anyone to give up land that was demarcated Indian , and the basis of which today's India was being formed.

Do Indians think there are parallels to the reported incursion recently?

Not so much , while the border dispute has survived both Mao and Nehru. The stakes have changed Considerably.

Win or lose any border spat , would tarnish the reputation of both nations on the world stage.

As well as significantly damage their economic growth trajectories.

Headline:"THE WORLD TWO FASTEST GROWING ECONOMIES(nuclear armed) ON THE BRINK OF WAR"

The panic on the Investment market alone , could cause serious damage.

India And China are unlikely to ever fight again in the traditional sense. At least in the foreseeable future, It simple is not practical.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

China lost more in 1962 , then India. While India may have lost land it claimed belonged to it. China has created a New military power to her South.

The following year , military spending was doubled . Priority to defence increased.

China detonated her A-Bomb in 1964 , and India followed suit in 1975 largely due to the perceived threat from China.

India's Military power today is largely due to Lessons learned from the war with China.