Capabilities and intentions are two different aspects. However, intent will depend largely on capabilities.
In 162, China was almost starving and their relation with USSR were deteriorating. Their Army was fatigued of the Korian war. They had no hopes of sucess against veteran India Army. Still they attacked and attained their objective of bringing Nehru's downfall.
No, Chinese were not fatigued. The Korean war had been over for 10 years. USSR had pumped $4 Billion (in 1950 dollars) into Chinese army in that period; which Mao refused to pay back. They were starving but not to the extent you seemed to imply. Indian army was under funded; thanks to Panchsheel and Nehru & Krishana Menon. The timing picked in October & November was bad. Worst of all they picked the wrong leadership of the army, which had not practised in mountain and snow warfare. On the other hand the Chinese brought their elite snow warrios from Manchuria with snow and mountain trained troops. The refugees arriving from Tibet in Tawang had elements of intelligence amongest them. Hence Chinese had better troops, good leadership and great intelligence. For them reaching Bomdila was piece of cake. Indian army did not even know the pathways let alone the roads to reach Nam Ka Chu River (the first flash point of the trouble).
The above is not true today. So Chinese are wiser and would keep the glory of 1962 victory with them. Instead of loosing all that glory in a fresh clash.
I don't blame you that you do not know history and you are probably nor permitted to surf the world wide web.
Please find out who started the wars?
Who sent the tribal hordes under Pak Army officers in the first war? Check it out.
Who started 1965 War with Op Gibraltar? Check it out.
Who started the Kargil Ops called Op Badr? Check it out.
Do you understand what is Forward Policy? It means putting troops at the border, troops which India never kept because India took China to be friends. With China transgressing Indian territory, it obviously became necessary to put troops at the border before ate up more territory.
Again you do not understand the subtlety.
India recognises Tibet as an autonomous region of China.
Check what autonomous means in political terms.
India does not recognise Tibet as any part of China except that which is autonomous.
Once you understand the political aspects of being autonomous, you will understand India's stand.
If India had any intentions to attack China, it should have done when China walked into Tibet unopposed.
At that time, China was also busy in the Korean War and so China would have to fight a two front battle and decide which of the front was more important - Tibet or keeping the US away from China's doorstep.
It would be recalled that the US wanted India to attack China when China entered Tibet, but India refused.
Thus, India had and has no imperialist designs, as China has and has shown throughout its history and is doing so even now!
You don't need to blame me. We all know how good indian is blaming others.
Oh, really? Then how wired is india treating its friend:
since last 50s, india kept rejecting china's suggesting of diplomatic talking regarding border as india thought there was nothing to talk about;
when india finally admit there was problems over there, instead of diplomatic talk, Nehru comed up with "forward policy" which is aiming at "throwing Chinese soldiers out of post".
Lets see what is said by BBC:
"India has now formally recognised that the area known as the Tibetan autonomous region is part of the People's Republic of China. "
Now, tell me again, genius, where did india recognises Tibet as an autonomous region of China?
What india say is "The area is named as Tibet autonomous region", which is the province name given by Chinese (by the way, there is lots of other provinces are titled with "autonomous region"). I don't see there is any india official emphasises that Tibet is only autonomous region of China (In the past, UK did emphasised that). Can you provide your souce?
I just indicated how the wars with Pakistan started and that is history - recent history and so unlike Chinese history, fudging cannot be done.
The 1947 War
Good man, this above is from [B]THE 1947-48 Kashmir War, The war of lost opportunities (Part I) by Maj (Retd) AGHA HUMAYUN AMIN [/B. Maj Gen Amin is a Pakistani officer.
The PAKISTANI Major General himself has shown that Pakistan sent raiders to attack India!
Therefore, if you have no clue of history, it is better not to show off your ignorance by stating We all know how good indian is blaming others.
Altaf Gauhar.is a Pakistani and was the Information Secretary Government of Pakistan. He is. a gifted writer and became very close to President Ayub Khan, so much so that he was known as the de-facto vice President of Pakistan.
Therefore, when he indicates Op Gibraltar was aimed and launched against India but was foiled by India once it was launched, it shows who started the 1965 War i.e. Pakistan.
If you don't know who started this war, which is so recent, then it is better you stop commenting on issues that you have no clue about.
I do hope as a Chinese you do belief your friends ie Pakistanis, who are your all weather friend and who spread the Gospel, apart from being your Echo!
Again you have no idea of history or it could be that the Communist Chinese history book has as usual invented history to suit its purpose.
It was India which sponsored China entry into the NAM as also the UN. Surely, one does not take on others to canvas for a social misfit like China was at that time.
China surreptitiously built roads in Aksai China and refused to admit it so or go back.
So, what do you expect India to do?
Obviously take up defence on the border before China steals more areas.
India states that Tibet is an Autonomous region of China.
But is Tibet Autonomous?
That is the issue!
Unfortunately China control every aspect of Tibet and so it is not Autonomous.
India recognises Tibet as an Autonomous Region only when China makes it Autonomous!
It shows how little you know of HIgh Altitude Warfare.
Unacclimatised troops cannot fight against Acclimatised troops which the Chinese were.
The effects of high altitude on humans are considerable. The percentage saturation of hemoglobin with oxygen determines the content of oxygen in our blood. After the human body reaches around 2,100 m (7,000 feet) above sea level, the saturation of oxyhemoglobin begins to plummet. However, the human body has both short-term and long-term adaptations to altitude that allow it to partially compensate for the lack of oxygen. Athletes use these adaptations to help their performance. There is a limit to the level of adaptation: mountaineers refer to the altitudes above 8,000 metres (26,000 ft) as the "death zone", where no human body can acclimatize.
Acclimatization is the process in an individual adjusting to a gradual change in its environment (such as a change in temperature, humidity, photoperiod, or pH), allowing it to maintain performance across a range of environmental conditions.
It is a regimen that takes a minimum of three weeks and even that is dependent on the individual response.
Pulmonary oedema occurs to both acclimatised and unacclimatised troops. It is fluid accumulation in the air spaces and parenchyma of the lungs. It leads to impaired gas exchange and may cause respiratory failure. It is due to either failure of the left ventricle of the heart to adequately remove blood from the pulmonary circulation ("cardiogenic pulmonary edema"), or an injury to the lung parenchyma or vasculature of the lung ("noncardiogenic pulmonary edema"). Whilst the range of causes are manifold the treatment options are limited, and to a large extent, the most effective therapies are used whatever the cause. Treatment is focused on three aspects: firstly improving respiratory function, secondly, treating the underlying cause, and thirdly avoiding further damage to the lung. Pulmonary edema, especially in the acute setting, can lead to respiratory failure, cardiac arrest due to hypoxia and death.
The fact that unacclimatised Indian troops responded to their call of duty and displayed great valour against Chinese acclimatised troops speaks of the stoic, determination and the love for their Motherland..
The fact that thereafter the Chinese in all other confrontation got a bloody nose speaks of what Indian troops can do when acclimatised and on equal footing!