1962 India China War, Role of Indian political and military leadership

Discussion in 'Military History' started by truthfull, May 7, 2010.

  1. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    714
    India inherited the same force of British raj but dont think that they were just rookies...it were the same Indian forces which broken the back of Rommel(the best German general of his time) in north Africa and driven him across north Africa. it were the same British Indian forces which driven Japanese from Burma and whole of east Asia.Mao Chinese forces had no chances against japs until Indian forces broke of the siege most of the east Asia.Last not the least please look into the history of British Indian forces which fought across the continents from Africa to Europe to middle east in most of Asia in both the world wars.... India wasn't called the jewel in crown of British empire just like that....it were the Indian army whose contribution immense in freeing up sieged countries like china and egypt and most of middle east and east Asia countries from the stranglehold of Axis powers japs ans Nazis.

    And regarding 1962 it wasn't the Indian army it was the failure of its civil leadership...thats what this thread is all about.and if u look into the CIA archives and the letters i ve inked on the previous papers you will know about it unless you too are brainwashed by CCP propaganda.And yes nehru was taken by surprise in 1962 due to VP menon hence he did harakiri of trusting the Chinese leadership on. Indian's first home minister sardar patel had long warned nehru about chinese forked tongue and distrust of them long back in 1950.read sardar patel's letter to nehru in 1950.

    Leadership at helm does work for it the success of any force and same Indian force who you call juvenile had given Chinese bloody nose just after 5 years in 1967 in nathu la incident and chola incident under Indira Gandhi as PM.
    And after getting bloody nose in 1967 it were the same veteran chinese forces who couldn't come to their buddy(pakistan's) help in east pakistan(now bangladesh)even after promising them and nixon of help in 1971.Coz in part they remembered Nathu La and in Part they remembered indira at the helm of affairs.
     
  2. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,389
    Likes Received:
    2,300
    Soviet Red Army was ready to nuke your derrière much less invade. Don't be naive. They wouldn't do it for India, they would do it to save themselves from the aggression you later displayed.

    They could initiate anything they want, just move the peasants.

    Most of the war was PLA just routing a bunch of undermanned garrisons. The heaviest fighting at Rezang La is exactly the tactic I am talking about. PLA threw wave after wave only to be mowed down. End of the day the casualties were 10:1 with 1,000 Chinese troops dead or dying.

    What is there to be partial about? You started the war, you won it.
     
    Waffen SS likes this.
  3. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    4,768
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    ‘brainwashed' again is a good label too. the opponent in the argument or debate must have been brainwashed. otherwise how could he not agree to my point? and the worst of all is washed by CCP! ah ha and it is this CCP who has brought China to this height today.

    I'm not sure, up to this moment, who has been brainwashed. Ind textbooks may continue to say, that's Ind territory and China invaded... by surprise... at least one thing for sure is there was no an India state until 1947 and that McMahon Line was unilaterrally drawn by Brit. with Tibet Gaxag but the rep. of ROC instantly refused to endorse.

    by the way in 1967/1971 China wasn't that intimate with PAK yet. Therefore China of course wouldn't have fought a war for E. Pak.
     
  4. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,325
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Armand it seems that india has shorter LoC's than China.The WZC seems to say that they will use prepositioned stocks to isolate and reduce the enemy nothing will be flown in.The probelm with the border is terrain the terrain is as much an enemy as the adversary.Atmost arty duels can be done in that area and the Tibetian plateau is not exactly conducive to airstrikes.The window period to do an attack in the air is 90 days
     
  5. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    714
    The Sumdorong Chu Incident is was another such incident where actually no fight took place but when indian leadership decided to use military chinese started talking peace.Just as what happened last year during HH Dalai Lama's visit to Tawang......

    The Sumdorong Chu Incident


    The Sino-Indian border has been a long and vexed issue and its role in the 1962 conflict needs no elaboration. Barring an armed clash at Nathu La in eastern Sikkim in 1967, the border between India and China (Tibet) – and specifically the ill-defined Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Ladakh/Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh - had remained free of any major incidents through the '70s and the early '80s. While relations between the countries remained frosty for the most part, official statements from Beijing and New Delhi professed a desire to solve the border tangle peacefully through mutual consultations. Beginning in 1981, officials from both countries held yearly talks on the border issue and these talks continued till 1989 [1]. The 7th round of border talks held in July 1986 was overshadowed by reports in the Indian media of Chinese incursions into the Sumdorong Chu valley in Arunachal Pradesh. This was followed by reports of large-scale troop movements on both sides of the border in early 1987, and grave concerns about a possible military clash over the border. While this incident raised the temperature in Delhi and Beijing for a while, it soon faded from the headlines, overtaken by other events in both sides of the border - Operation Brasstacks, Rajiv Gandhi's visit to China in 1988, and the Tianamen Square incident in 1989 among others.

    This article is an attempt to piece together the events that occurred, beginning in the summer of 1986 at the Sumdorong Chu valley. A description of the initial incident is followed by the subsequent escalation in tension in early 1987 and the diplomatic steps taken to cool those tensions. In the concluding section, some speculations concerning the motives behind the actions of the two countries are examined.

    The Incident: June - October 1986

    Sumdorong Chu (S-C) - referred to as Sangduoluo He in the Chinese media - is a rivulet flowing north-south in the Thag La triangle, bounded by Bhutan in the west and the Thag La ridge to the north. On June 26, 1986, the Government of India (GoI) lodged a formal protest with Beijing against intrusions in this region by Chinese troops, that had occurred beginning on June 16. Beijing denied any such intrusions and maintained that its troops were in a location north of the McMahon Line (ML), while the official Indian stance was that the Chinese troops had intruded south of the ML. (The actual region of the incursion has been described as the Thandrong pasture on the banks of the S-C, and also as the Wangdung region - which comes under the Zimithang circle of Tawang district [2]). This region has been located to the north of the ML by outside sources [3,4], as also by independent Indian observers [5,6].

    This region falls along a traditional route from Lhasa to Tawang - and from there to the Brahmaputra valley - and the nearby Thag La ridge had witnessed serious clashes in the '62 conflict. The area had been considered a neutral area by both sides since 1962/63 [5,6] and had not been monitored by India between 1977 and 1980 [4]. However with the improvement of logistics on the Indian side, the Indian Army sought to reinforce and strengthen forward areas in Arunachal Pradesh in the early '80s. Patrols resumed in 1981 and by the summer of 1984 India had established an observation post on the bank of S-C [5,6] – which apparently afforded a view of Chinese positions on the other side of Thag La [3]. This post was manned by personnel of the Special Security Bureau (SSB) through the summer and vacated in the winter. In June of 1986, when a patrol from the 12th Assam Regiment returned to the area, it found a sizable number of Chinese already present, engaged in constructing permanent structures [2,8].

    Initial reports put the number of Chinese at 40 - some of them armed and in uniform - who were soon reinforced to a total strength of about 200 men. Statements by Indian ministers in the Parliament described the intrusion as being between 1-2 km deep as the crow flies, supplied by mules along a 7 km trail [2]. By August the Chinese had constructed a helipad and began supplying their troops by air. Regarding the Chinese presence as a fait accompli and to prevent further 'nibbling', the Indian Army began aggressive patrolling across Arunachal Pradesh at other vulnerable areas. In September ’86 – while under pressure from both the public and opposition MPs to adopt a strong posture - the GoI sought a way out of the crisis by suggesting that if the Chinese withdrew in the coming winter, India would not re-occupy the area in the following summer. This offer was rejected by China whose troops were by now prepared to stay through the winter. By September-October, an entire Indian Army brigade of the 5th Mtn. Division was airlifted to Zimithang, a helipad very close to the S-C valley. Referred to as Operation Falcon [7,9], this involved the occupation of ridges overlooking the S-C valley, including Langrola and the Hathung La ridge across the Namka Chu rivulet. (These ridges are to the south of Thag La.)

    Escalation: October '86 - May '87

    In October, the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping warned N.Delhi that if it continued nibbling across the border, China would have to "teach India a lesson" [10]. This threat – identical to that made to Vietnam in 1979 - was conveyed by the US Defense Secretary during a stopover in N.Delhi from Beijing. The rise in tensions was not helped, when in December 1986, Arunachal Pradesh was made a full state of the Indian Union. This drew a chorus of protests from across the border and Indian reactions that any change in Arunachal Pradesh’s administrative status was an internal matter. The spring and summer of 1987 saw media reports of heavy troop movements on both sides of the border and the very real possibility of a serious military clash [11,12,13]. Deng Xiaoping's earlier warning was conveyed again on March - this time by the US Secretary of State. By spring '87, Indian and Chinese camps were right next to each other in the S-C valley [3,10].

    China – which has always had a large military presence in Tibet since its occupation – was said to have moved in 20,000 troops from the "53rd Army Corps in Chengdu and the 13th Army in Lanzhou" [23] by early 1987 along with heavy artillery and helicopters. By early April, it had moved 8 divisions to eastern Tibet as a prelude to possible belligerent action [6].

    Troop reinforcements on the Indian side – which had begun with Operation Falcon in late 1986 – continued through early ’87 under a massive air-land exercise. Titled Exercise Chequerboard, it involved 10 divisions of the Army and several squadrons of the IAF and redeployment of troops at several places in the North-East. The Indian Army moved 3 divisions to positions around Wangdung [14], where they were supplied and maintained solely by air. These troop reinforcements were over and above the 50,000 troops already present across Arunachal Pradesh [11].

    Denouement: May '87 - present

    Rising tensions were lowered after a visit to China by the Indian External Affairs Minister in May 1987, where both sides reaffirmed their desire to continue talks on the border issue and to cool things down on the border. In August '87, Indian and Chinese troops moved their respective posts slightly apart in the S-C valley, after a meeting of the field commanders. During the 8th round of border talks on November '87, it was decided to upgrade the talks from the bureaucratic to the political level. Following Rajiv Gandhi's visit to China in 1988, a Joint Working Group (JWG) was set up to discuss, among other things, the alignment of the LAC [15]. In 1993, an agreement was inked between the foreign ministers of the two countries on the reduction of troops along the LAC. It was decided to pull back from respective forward check posts in the S-C valley from a situation of "close confrontation" and in 1994, the Indian MEA described the situation as one of "close proximity" where the respective posts were 50-100 yards apart [16]. Following the JWG meeting on April 1995, the two sides agreed to a simultaneous withdrawal of their troops from the four border posts - two Indian and two Chinese - in the S-C valley [3,15,17]. As of June 1999, the valley was unoccupied by either army, and their respective posts in the area were close to a kilometre apart [18].
     
  6. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,325
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Brezhnev was ready to invade Lop nor with 46 divisions and 200 nukes .They were ready to nuke china because of mad mao's red guards antics at the damanaski islands.The PLA was never was never will be the beast the Red army was at most the PLA is a joke when compared to the red army.Don't think too much about the PLA with respect to the red army
     
  7. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    714
    Hey mongols do've claim over china.even japs do ve claim over china.there was no china itsel until moa's revolution right??????and Nathu la incident in 1987 was between india-china forces not in between india-pak forces.If in 1967-71 china was not close to pak then how come chinese used vetoes after veto against india in favour of pak.And yes its the CCP which brainwashes chinese not the indian texts...
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2010
  8. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,325
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Most of PLA conflicts have heavy casualities korean war 1.2 million dead,first vietnam war 30,000 in 30 days all because Deng wanted to teach a lesson to the vietnamese 30,000 mothers lost their sons for nothing
     
  9. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    4,768
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Most of the war was PLA just routing a bunch of undermanned garrisons. The heaviest fighting at Rezang La is exactly the tactic I am talking about. PLA threw wave after wave only to be mowed down. End of the day the casualties were 10:1 with 1,000 Chinese troops dead or dying.
    ===========================

    give ya numbers http://club.mil.news.sohu.com/r-zz0255-303081-0-0-900.html

    China - death 722, injured 1697
    India - death 4885 captive 3968

    no wonder there's a saying 'people only believe what they want to believe'
     
  10. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    714
    Any chinese site info should be taken with truck load of salt.........btw im speaking of 1967 not 1962.....

    translation.....

    chinese acting in self defence...chinese sized tanks aircrafts from indian army in 1962..dear sir in india IAF is not like People liberation Army air force or navy like PLAN.as ur site uppose to tell that indian army ad air wing.indian army never har air wing in 1962 and still not. IAF and IN are totally different forces in ind. ROFLMAO
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2010
  11. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    4,768
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Brezhnev was ready to invade Lop nor with 46 divisions and 200 nukes .They were ready to nuke china because of mad mao's red guards antics at the damanaski islands.The PLA was never was never will be the beast the Red army was at most the PLA is a joke when compared to the red army.Don't think too much about the PLA with respect to the red army

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++
    u seem to belittle Brezhnev as the head of a world top power.

    Soviet Union was competing with the US for world dominance. Instead of wasting "46 divisions and 200 nukes ' u dreamed of , Brezhnev clearly knew his priority and consequences.

    that's why USSR once was on the top becoz it had a view of 'a big picture'.

    PLA is a joke but it at least has fought and shed blood for China in wars like Korean War against Uncle Sam... and more...

    Oh by the way, that 'damanaski islands' is called by Chinese 'Pearl Island' as part of China officially after the demarcation treaty. Mad Mao? he might have been 'mad' but we know - a hero is a hero regardless of his mistakes. a mosquito is a mosquito no matter how beautiful it looks.
     
  12. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,325
    Likes Received:
    1,492

    The NATO and US faced 178 tank divisions and 20,000 nukes at fulda gap and the Chinese faced 46 divisions simultaneously.There is a great poster here who served in those NATO divisions.

    Why are the 38th and 39th armies facing russian border and your forces are 100 miles away from the russian border?Google before shooting your mouth off.The only reason breznhev backed off was due to Nixon who prevented him.You think the bear is a joke ask the germans how badly it can maul

    the credit equally goes to Zhou-enlai and Deng Xaoping who dragged China by the balls into the 20 th century.Mao was a joke when compared to those two titans.Mao never loved his people for him people are cannon fodder.Deng genuinely loved his people
     
  13. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,098
    Likes Received:
    10,704
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Stop the bloody non sense now. What is the topic of the thread? Indian political decisions during china war. This thread is getting converted to the crap we've all seen before and I will have none of it. All are warned.
     
  14. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,389
    Likes Received:
    2,300
    Prepositioned stocks include two Group Armies and 2 mountain divisions compared to a few Indian mountain divisions in the Eastern Sector. The major links to those areas are the crumbling NH31A,NH52 and one rail link. They aren't exactly great military highways. In the West they can throw 2 Group Armies at the Northern Command which has one mountain division and 6 infantry divisions with little access to the disputed areas. That is just what is there now and Indian forces are greatly outnumbered, China could easily beef up their forces without too much notice. India is well positioned to repel a deep thrust into India, but they are not well positioned to move on the LAC and AP. As far as airpower I don't think PLAAF will let that get in the way of their plans, although it will have only a limited effect with little else but dumb bombs and rocket pods. Artillery will play the decisive role and India has a problem with that too.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2010
  15. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    714
    Learn from past, focus on China


     
  16. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    4,768
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Unlike what the Panchsheel lovers claim, invoking a lost legacy isn’t fanciful nostalgia. When the Communists reneged on their commitment to grant Uighurs political autonomy — the top leadership of the community was conveniently killed while flying to Beijing for talks — several hundred Uighurs fled China. These included Isa Yusuf Alpetkin and Mehmet Emin Bughra, the leaders of the Eastern Turkestan Republic which existed from the 1930s to 1949. It is significant that they took refuge in India because they regarded New Delhi as a sympathetic neighbour. It is only after they experienced India’s cravenness that they shifted to Turkey.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    revisionism of China history again to serve their point. I suspect people may be misled again and again if no one voices.

    1) this write-up mixed up and distorted all the things
    there were 2 forces in 1920'-40's in the East Turkestan Movement , one was communists supported by the USSR and sent back from USSR, the other religous extremists, converging to overthrow then ROC (prior to PRC)'s rule over Xinjiang. But later USSR changed stance when they saw CCP (Soviet's ally) was about to take over China from KMT (ROC) and consequently instructed the Communists (Uigur and other Muslims) to cooperate and join CCP.

    2) the mentioned top leadership was of that Communist faction flying to Beijing for talks on a Soviet plane. There was no conspiracy like CCP killed them. It was an accident. One of the leadership Seypidin Eziz who wasn't on that plane later even became President of PRC (I read his memoir - how he migrated to USSR and became a commie, then got back to China to fight for 'liberation)!!!

    3) For the other faction in the separatist camp - non-communist but fundamentalists - fled to India then Turkey
    u can't be of dual standards - nowadays they're called 'terrorists' akin to Taliban daydreaming about an "Islamic State', despite Xinjiang includes lots of non-Muslims (Han, Manchu, Mongols...) and non-extreme Muslims (Uzbek, Khazak...)


    This report is trying to sell a point about India political leadership, with China as a 'contrast', however supporting 'facts' don't hold water
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2010
  17. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,381
    Likes Received:
    928
    Those are Chinese figures, son. Obviously, it should occur to you that both sides inflated the enemy's figures while smoothing out the creases on their own.

    Here is a more non-partisan source:

    India
    1,383- Killed
    1,047- Wounded
    1,696- Missing
    3,968- Captured

    China
    722- Killed
    1,697- Wounded

    From the Strategic Studies Institute: Laurie Burkitt, Andrew Scobell, Andrew M. Wortzell

    Let's put this in perspective of the combat strength in the area. 10,000-12,000 Indian troops versus 80,000 Chinese troops.

    So yes, the statement:

    "Most of the war was PLA just routing a bunch of undermanned garrisons. The heaviest fighting at Rezang La is exactly the tactic I am talking about. PLA threw wave after wave only to be mowed down. End of the day the casualties were 10:1 with 1,000 Chinese troops dead or dying."

    does make sense.

    Which is why we say Nehru fucked us over.
     
  18. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,864
    Likes Received:
    579
    how comes out your "80000 troops"?


    On Octo.,1962,Altogether, about 30000-40000 PLA soldiers were deployed along sino-India boundary at that time. in fact, it is a corps-level battle

    Here was the formation of PLA involved in the battle at that time.


     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2010
  19. hit&run

    hit&run Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,408
    Likes Received:
    2,824
    LOC or TIBET or BOTH
    ^For insecure, superstitious and haunted by its sins of Tibet with Dalia Lama in India; 1962 war was a gamble by china.
    For India 1962 war was clear military victory over china. Only non assertive Nehru helped china to do win propaganda war and till today Chinese rant that they won 1962 war.

    Since 1962 so called superior Chinese army is not able to meet its objective completely by maintaining LOC of pre 1960 era but was able to save Tibet.
    Indian army was able to torn apart the LOC and still maintaining. We have taught them a lessons again during skirmish in Sikkim. Also in near future they do not have guts to achieve their objective per PLA's perception but are doing cheap encroachment. [! That is why Chinese politics has failed to resolve border issues with india cause PLA maps are still optimistic for the same line be drawn back in favour]

    Stopping India's so called (Chinese invention) forward policy was never China's objective as they were already acclimatizing PLA in Tibet 2 years before. 80k numbers of PLA men are true stats and furthermore how military equipments were smuggled (i will say) via bay of bengal using Indian ports to Chinese military way before India could entrench into Chinese territory (as china says) is testimony to the fact that China was Pre-planning to cowardly attack India for its imperialist aspirations.
    Kudos to Indian soldiers those who even fought with knives and hands and won the LOC for India to claim that military victory when neither Tibet nor land beyond LOC was our desire lol at china.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2010
  20. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,381
    Likes Received:
    928
    "how comes out my 80000 troops"? You know, I wish I could indulge you every time you went off on one of your cock-trips.

    You want proof, here it is:

    House Armed Services Committee Report by the United States' Congress House Panel on Defense — 1999, pg. 62

    You should find it on here. I have no patience to rifle thru.
    http://armedservices.house.gov/comdocs/schedules/1999.shtml


    Also read:

    War at the Top of the World: The Struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Tibet by Eric S. Margolis, pg. 234, 2nd Edition, Routledge Publishing

    http://books.google.ca/books?id=PLR...&resnum=3&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Please. Don't give me piss from sina.com, the same site that airs videos of pirated movies and has a chat forum of some of the most idiotic Chinese I've ever seen.

    And 'iask'? Do you know what that is? An amateur response section like Yahoo Answers. Maybe it's my turn to go 'haha'.
     

Share This Page