In Himalayan arms race, China one-ups India

[Hari Sud]

Bad assessment of 1962 situation around China:

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.

 

[no smoking]

India is a peace loving country and history is witness to that. Hence China has no threat from India.
China historically is a militaristic state and aggressive at that.

Yes, history has witness that 4 wars india already fighted with its neighbours in just less than 30 years after its independence. Yes, of course, they are all other's fault.

China invaded India in 1962.

Oh, yes, that "forward policy" is not a provocative move.

Occupied land must be returned and no one should be allowed occupy land gained militarily.
Tibet is an autonomous zone and not China.

You should tell that to your goveronment:

BBC NEWS | South Asia | India and China agree over Tibet

 

[blank_quest]

 

[badguy2000]

Bad assessment of 1962 situation around China:

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.

well, what was more important to CHIna is not 4 billion$ arms USSR pumped,but 156 heavy industry complex helped by Soviet .

the 156 heavy industry comlex include shenyang aicraft compan(poducing J11B),Baotou Heavy industry(producing T99)..etc, they have been the backbone of CHina industry might.

in 1950, China's industry might was weaker than India, but in 1960 CHina had a complete industry system already and India had no chance to defeat China.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

How would pianaca raech 150 to 250 km deep? I would have agreed had you said Brahmos.

Pinaka 2 will be 125km deep in range. (and similar to Israeli LORA) I did say Brahmos

http://articles.economictimes.india...os-aerospace-federal-state-unitary-enterprise
Army to order mountain-strike BrahMos regiment soon


., and possibly brahmos and nirbhay air launched if arrival is timely?

 

[Ray]

Yes, history has witness that 4 wars india already fighted with its neighbours in just less than 30 years after its independence. Yes, of course, they are all other's fault.

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.

Oh, yes, that "forward policy" is not a provocative move.

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.

You should tell that to your goveronment:

BBC NEWS | South Asia | India and China agree over Tibet

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.

 

[Ray]

in 1950, China's industry might was weaker than India, but in 1960 CHina had a complete industry system already and India had no chance to defeat China.

India has no reason to attack China.

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!

 

[arya]

Pinaka 2 will be 125km deep in range. (and similar to Israeli LORA) I did say Brahmos

Army to order mountain-strike BrahMos regiment soon - Economic Times
Army to order mountain-strike BrahMos regiment soon


., and possibly brahmos and nirbhay air launched if arrival is timely?

we need that types of weapon which can attack deep inside in china

we need more deathly weapons

 

[badguy2000]

India has no reason to attack China.

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!

do you believe that India could give a pressure on Tibet as heavy as USA gave on Korea in 1950....

You overrate India military might in 1950s-1960s tooo much....

BTW, in 1962,only about 35K of 2.5 M PLA were invovled in sino-india war.

However, in 1950,over 1M of 5M PLA were invovled in Korea war......

in 1962, PLA just used the smallest one of its fingers in sino-india war and already crushed all resistent of india army.

 

[no smoking]

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.

You don't need to blame me. We all know how good indian is blaming others.

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.

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".

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.

Really?

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?

 

[GromHellscream]

India has no reason to attack China.

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 means throwing sh!t on our face is equal to no reason to attack us, well!

Still dreaming on your influence on Tibet? Tibet is not the buffering zone as indian thought it to be, it has game overed long long ago.

For the next centuries, the sub-continent will face the majority power of China directly, no matter whether you want or not.

 

[Ray]

You means throwing sh!t on our face is equal to no reason to attack us, well!

Still dreaming on your influence on Tibet? Tibet is not the buffering zone as indian thought it to be, it has game overed long long ago.

For the next centuries, the sub-continent will face the majority power of China directly, no matter whether you want or not.

Can you refute the facts?

Face the majority power of China?

How?

You are going to go to war and claim all the 20 territories you claim as yours as per the Qing period hangover?

 

[Ray]

You don't need to blame me. We all know how good indian is blaming others.

Why should anyone blame a person who is ignorant.

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

The Muslim League's high command had tasked Mian Iftikhar ud Din Minister for Refugees to prepare a plan aimed at ensuring that the Muslim majority state of Kashmir should join Pakistan. Brigadier Akbar Khan then serving in the Pakistani GHQ wrote an appreciation 'armed revolt inside Kashmir ' on Mian Iftikhar ud Din's request. It appears that Mr Jinnah had tasked Liaquat to handle the Kashmir business.


Liaquat in turn earmarked Mian Iftikhar ud Din. Iftikhar requested Sardar Shaukat Hayat and Brigadier Akbar Khan for advice. A conference presided by Liaquat was held at Lahore in September 1947. This was attended by Akbar whose appreciation had already been shown to Liaquat by Iftikhar ud Din earlier. Ghulam Mohammad the Finance Minister who was a contemporary of Liaquat at MAO College Aligarh4 and at this time was foremost in playing sycophant par excellence with Liaquat also attended the conference.

Brigadier Akbar Khan a Burma DSO who was Director of the newly formed Weapon And Equipment Directorate at the General Headquarters, tasked unofficially to support the tribal raiders logistically, using all resources at his disposal in GHQ as Director Weapons and Equipment without letting the Britishers controlling the Pakistan Army know!

The tribesmen were brought from the NWFP tribal areas on trucks requisitioned by Government of Pakistan and concentrated in Batrasi north-east of Abbottabad. The invasion was to commence from 20th October 1947; the main northern tribal force invading Kashmir under Khurshid Anwar on Abbottabad-Garhi Habibullah-Muzaffarabad-Srinagar axis with a smaller auxiliary force advancing along Murree-Kohala-Muzaffarabad axis.

The official history does not mention the Lahore conference presided by Liaquat but merely states that 'Major Khurshid Anwar (as a result of some divine revelation!) undertook to organise and lead (whether voluntarily or on someone else's orders is left to the readers' imagination!) the tribesmen into Kashmir when the opportunity arose' ! In addition Major Aslam Khan an ex- Kashmir State Force Officer and a MC of WW Two also joined the Lashkar. Aslam was son of Brigadier Tor Gul who was a loyal subject of the Hindu Dogra ruler of Kashmir before 1947! The Lashkar of tribesmen had been assembled by the efforts of Khan Khushdil Khan of Mardan. On the night of 20/21 October 2,000 tribesmen captured the bridge spanning the Neelam river on the Hazara Trunk Road linking Muzaffarabad with Abbottabad without a fight, since the all Muslim guard platoon of 4 Jammu and Kashmir Infantry joined the tribesmen.
Indo Pak Military History: THE 1947-48 Kashmir War-Major Agha.H.Amin

Good man, this above is from 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.

1965 War

he following is excerpted from the Foreword to the book on the 1965 war by Pakistani Air Marshal Asghar Khan. He retired a few months before `Operation Gibraltar' was launched in August of 1965. The foreword is by Altaf Gauhar. The book, titled, `The First Round - Indo-Pakistan war" was published in 1978.

`Operation Gibraltar' reflected the outlook and character of the late Major General A.H. Malik who was a bold and imaginative officer. Yet the plan collapsed on the launching pad. We are told that the plan was acclaimed by `top civilian advisors' but their names are not given.

The whole plan was constructed on three assumptions:

(i) widespread support would be available within Occupied Kashmir.
(ii) India would restrict its offensive to the Azad Kashmir territory
(iii) there was no possibility of India crossing the international border

All three assumptions proved wrong.

The operation failed because in its formulation, apart from the element of Foreign Office conspiracy, the fundamental difference between commando raids and `guerrilla ' operations was never clearly recognized. Personnel were selected without taking into account that many of them "knew neither the area nor the language". How could the poor villagers in Occupied Kashmir distinguish between a raider and a partisan ?

It was claimed at the time that `Operation Gibraltar' was foolproof; since everyone involved in it knew only his specific bit the enemy would never discover its full scope and objectives. The truth is that the first four volunteers who were captured by the Indians described the whole plan in a broadcast on All India Radio on the 8th of August 1965, nearly a month before India crossed the international boundary.

I mentioned this broadcast to Brigadier Irshad who was then Director, Military Intelligence. I still remember his sad comment: "The blighters have spilled the beans !"

Asghar Khan attributes the failure of the operation to the fact that the stepping up of the tempo " was not gradual enough to give it the character of an internal uprising, nor was it controlled sufficiently to keep it within the bounds of Indian political and military acceptability"

The escalation was inevitable and the operations were never related to the objective situation inside Kashmir. The Indians would never cross the international border, maintained the Foreign Office and the people of Jammu and Kashmir would rise as a man as soon as our volunteers go into Occupied Kashmir, believed the G.H.Q. These two assumptions provided the basis for an operation which was conceived in an atmosphere of intrigue and conducted with woeful negligence.

Musings: 1965 - Operation Gibraltar

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.

Kargil War

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!

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".

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.

Really?

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?

India states that Tibet is an Autonomous region of China.

But is Tibet Autonomous?

That is the issue!

Autonomous means

au·ton·o·mous"‚ "‚[aw-ton-uh-muhs]
adjective
1. Government .

a.self-governing; independent; subject to its own laws only.

b. pertaining to an autonomy.

2. having autonomy; not subject to control from outside; independent: a subsidiary that functioned as an autonomous unit.

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!

 

[Ray]

in 1962, PLA just used the smallest one of its fingers in sino-india war and already crushed all resistent of india army.

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.[1] 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.[1] 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!

 

[Bhadra]

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.[1] 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.[1] 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!

Chinese are brainwashed rats. so they will keep putting up their propaganda.....

Buggers do not know that they got their UNSC seat because of India......

 

[Bhadra]

East Turkistan in Not Chinese land.

Tibet always belonged to the Tibetans and shall come back to Tibetans !
If history is to be believed.....

 

[Ray]

Chinese are brainwashed rats. so they will keep putting up their propaganda.....

Buggers do not know that they got their UNSC seat because of India......

Their knowledge is in a matrix as is fed by the propaganda machine of the CCP.

I have just shown how stupid they can be, when they feel that the Indians are to be blamed for the Wars against Pakistan.

The Pakistanis themselves, their Generals and the top Bureaucrats state it is Pakistan which initiated the Wars and these foolish Chinese with indoctrinated 'history' keep spewing stupidity par excellence that they own friends, the Pakistanis, state is all Cock!

The Chinese are blind and they disown reality and live in their CCP inspired la la land!

 

[qazwsx]

When China got UNSC seat in 1946, there was no independent country named India yet.

Chinese are brainwashed rats. so they will keep putting up their propaganda.....

Buggers do not know that they got their UNSC seat because of India......

 

[no smoking]

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.

When you only read your india history book, it make you no better the chinese you accused.
Unfortunately, I read chinese book and book written by westerners.
Or maybe, to you, only indian books are telling the truth.

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.

Yes, india did some favors for China. However, it is just too greedy to ask China to pay it with lands.

China surreptitiously built roads in Aksai China and refused to admit it so or go back.

So, what do you expect India to do?

What india to do? How about accepting Chinese propose of starting diplomacy negotiation!

Obviously take up defence on the border before China steals more areas.

Or india is doing more than that: you people is trying to taking the chnese occupied land by force.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

India states that Tibet is an Autonomous region of China.

But is Tibet Autonomous?

That is the issue!

Autonomous means



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!

Again, please provide your source that India only recognises that Tibet is an Autonomous Region in China. As I pointed out that UK did emphasis that it only treats tibet as an autonomous region before changing its stance.
Please give me your source.

Furthermore, I didn't see any inidian official protest that China doesn't make Tibet Autonomous. Isn't that wired?

 

[blank_quest]

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.

When you only read your india history book, it make you no better the chinese you accused.
Unfortunately, I read chinese book and book written by westerners.
Or maybe, to you, only indian books are telling the truth.



Yes, india did some favors for China. However, it is just too greedy to ask China to pay it with lands.



What india to do? How about accepting Chinese propose of starting diplomacy negotiation!



Or india is doing more than that: you people is trying to taking the chnese occupied land by force.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie








Again, please provide your source that India only recognises that Tibet is an Autonomous Region in China. As I pointed out that UK did emphasis that it only treats tibet as an autonomous region before changing its stance.
Please give me your source.

Furthermore, I didn't see any inidian official protest that China doesn't make Tibet Autonomous. Isn't that wired?

Q.2700 Public resentment in Tibet

April 17, 2008

RAJYA SABHA
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 2700
TO BE ANSWERED ON 17.04.2008

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI:
SHRI RAJ MOHINDER SINGH MAJITHA:
Will the Minister of EXTERNAL AFFAIRS be pleased to state:
(a) whether it is a fact that consequent upon the recent public resentment in Tibet people in many countries of the world had demonstrated in public support;
(b) if so, whether representatives of the Government of China had resorted to inhuman treatment with the Government representatives of India protesting these public demonstrations; and
(c) if so, the facts thereof and the steps taken by Government of India in protest of such inhuman treatment?

ANSWER THE MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS(SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE)

(a) to (c) Government are aware of public demonstrations in several countries around the world in response to the recent developments in Lhasa. Government are distressed by reports of the unsettled situation and violence in Lhasa, and by the deaths of innocent people. Government hope that all those involved will work to improve the situation and remove the causes of such trouble in Tibet, which is an autonomous region of China, through dialogue and non-violent means.

source..... what else you want??