Ceding Aksai Chin not an option for India

[MAYURA]

There were previous violations by PLA, yes, and have I denied that?

Read my post carefully.

I have clearly said they built a road through Indian territory of Aksai Chin.

India's Forward Policy in Aksai Chin is different from India setting up Dhola post north of McMahon line. Please don't confuse the two things.

I am not confusing anything as my general position is that Indian actions were not at all responsible for war unless Maxwell believes that Britain was responsible for rape of Poland by nazi soviet alliance.

 

[pmaitra]

All this correct but this does not mean India was not pro USSR what it shows is that cuban missile crisis allowed USSR to not help us and then US tried to move india away from communist nexus( failed attempt unfortunately).

You need to read Kennedy remarks after liberation of Goa to know the bitterness cayused by Nehru in Indo US relations.

You are over-inflating Kennedy's reaction. The fact is, Portugal tried to invoke NATO alliance's promise of protection from invasion when India tried to liberate Goa, and the US firmly refused, and was supportive of India over Portugal.

I am not confusing anything as my general position is that Indian actions were not at all responsible for war unless Maxwell believes that Britain was responsible for rape of Poland by nazi soviet alliance.

India was right in whatever it did in Aksai Chin. On Dhola post, it was not.

There were frequent skirmishes between India and PRC since 1958, but only when India established an IB post north of McMahon line did PRC start to prepare for war. Until then, they simply did not have a valid reason to invade. On the other hand, the Cuban Missile Crisis provided a good cover; however, one must understand that the size of PLA was greater in 1958 than in 1962, and PLA had started demobilizing much of its troops prior to 1962, and many Korean soldiers of the PLA started to be sent back to Korea. These are all facts, and you can verify them if you would like.

The most important thing is, don't argue for the sake of arguing. Try to understand exactly what is written in this post: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ksai-chin-not-option-india-17.html#post742046; and please do not assume what has not been said.

 

[MAYURA]

You are over-inflating Kennedy's reaction. The fact is, Portugal tried to invoke NATO alliance's promise of protection from invasion when India tried to liberate Goa, and the US firmly refused, and was supportive of India over Portugal.

And you are underrating Kennedy's reaction which was so because of persistent west bashing by nehru.

India was right in whatever it did in Aksai Chin. On Dhola post, it was not.

Do you mean strategically?

There were frequent skirmishes between India and PRC since 1958, but only when India establish an IB post north of McMahon line did PRC start to prepare for war. Until then, they simply did not have a reason to invade. On the other hand, the Cuban Missile Crisis provided a good cover; however, one must understand that the size of PLA was greater in 1958 than in 1962, and PLA had started demobilizing much of its troops prior to 1962, and many Korean soldiers of the PLA started to be sent back to Korea. These are all facts, and you can verify them if you would like.

Korean soldiers are irrelevant in our case so i do not know what you are saying. What was their composition in PLA?

 

[pmaitra]

And you are underrating Kennedy's reaction which was so because of persistent west bashing by nehru.

Kennedy's disposition towards India is best testified by the swiftness with which Kennedy agreed to send weapons to India when PLA was still on the outskirts of Tezpur.

Do you mean strategically?

Aksai Chin was Indian territory, so India had the moral and legal right to send patrols into Aksai Chin. So, morally, it was right. Strategically, also, it was right, because India had a geographical advantage when close to the Karakoram, and neither side had a geographical advantage when deep in Aksai Chin.

Korean soldiers are irrelevant in our case so i do not know what you are saying. What was their composition in PLA?

I can tell you, prior to demobilization, PLA had 3.5 million troops. During demobilization, those from Korea were being sent back to Korea, while those that were Chinese were being sent back to civilian life. I do not have the exact numbers of Koreans in PLA, but that is not relevant, because, it was not only the Koreans, but also many Chinese who were going back to civilian life. What is relevant is that PLA was much bigger in 1958 than it was in 1962.

Request: Please quote properly.

 

[MAYURA]

@pmaitra

Kennedy's disposition towards India is best testified by the swiftness with which Kennedy agreed to send weapons to India when PLA was still on the outskirts of Tezpur.

That is what I am saying that it was Nehru and india which due to pro USSR attitude forced an otherwise india friendly( even Eisenhower was pro india initially ) to use such langauge. That only proves that US was not as bad as nehruvians made it out to be.

I can tell you, prior to demobilization, PLA had 3.5 million troops. During demobilization, those from Korea were sent back to Korea, while those that were Chinese were sent back to civilian life. I do not have the exact numbers of Koreans in PLA, but that is not relevant, because, it was not only the Koreans, but also many Chinese who were going back to civilian life. What is relevant is that PLA was much bigger in 1958 than it was in 1962.

Yes but we are sure that China had more reasons to attack india in 1962 than 1958 and this is not because of dhola post but GLF effect, cuban missile crisis and internal bickering in chinese communist party.

 

[Ray]

First of all, India was not pro-USSR in 1962. India was Non-Aligned. Yes, the USSR was slingtly bent in favour of India, but India was still Non-Aligned. Secondly, Dhola post was to the north of the McMahon line, and there is nothing colourful about that, nor is that an opinion, that is a fact.

Again, the whole question is of Perceptions and not ground reality.

Actions by a country indicates, how other countries perceives that country in question.

China, today, insists it is still on its "Peaceful Rise".

Though it has not occupied any foreign territories as yet, the manner in which she is rushing headlong into arming herself and its belligerent actions in the South China Sea and in Ladakh or assisting rebels against the Myanmar Govt, gives rise to the perception in the international circles, that China is not on a 'Peaceful Rise' but is on the brink of embarking on armed interventions to make good her claims on other countries' territories. In short. it is Perceptions!

Ever since Independence, India has spurned US overtures, starting from the famous 'Dulles Go Back' graffiti plastered all over when he was to visit India.

This will indicate the US perception of India at that time.

Dulles will Visit India under Adverse Conditions

The Times-News - Google News Archive Search

Also

American attitudes toward India tend to be based on ignorance and, as a result, American policy toward that country is often one of neglect. Anglo-American concerns as well as U.S.-Soviet competition and Indo-Pakistani rivalry have complicated Washington's bilateral ties with New Delhi. ...

President George Bush refused to certify that Pakistan was not engaged in developing nuclear weapons, and U.S. aid to Pakistan was suspended. But American beliefs about India were deep-rooted--especially among legislators--and attitudes were slow to adjust to changing international circumstances. Hostility toward India lingered on Capitol Hill as late as 1995, when the Brown Amendment was passed, because of India's relationship with Russia--even though Moscow was no longer regarded as a threat to the United States....

The most compelling factor in Washington's bilateral relations with New Delhi is the belief that India was on the wrong side of the two most important conflicts of the past century: World War II and the Cold War. Although millions of Indian soldiers served in the British army, the Indian National Congress refused to support the war against the Axis powers as long as London would not promise independence. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was viewed as "clearly pro-Russian," and Indian nonalignment was seen as "a major obstacle to US efforts to rally and unite the free nations of Asia in the struggle against Soviet world domination."(n25) Although there is little institutional memory in Washington, those perceptions have remained consistent in the State Department and on Capitol Hill.(n26)

CHANGING PERCEPTIONS OF INDIA IN THE U


In so far as USSR's assistance to India, it would be rather ungrateful to say 'slightly' pro India.

A cordial relationship with India that began in the 1950s represented the most successful of the Soviet attempts to foster closer relations with Third World countries. The relationship began with a visit by Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru to the Soviet Union in June 1955 and Khrushchev's return trip to India in the fall of 1955. While in India, Khrushchev announced that the Soviet Union supported Indian sovereignty over the Kashmir region and over Portuguese coastal enclaves.

Read more at Soviet Union-India

One could calculate the military equipment India got at very low rates as also the immense assistance to India given by the US towards building the various industrial behemoths, which sustained India's industrial growth inspite of the crippling fiscal situation.

As far as the Non Alignment Movement was concerned, it was definitely pro Russia since it was formed by those who were newly independent nations and were suspicious of their erstwhile colonial rulers, who were all from the West and gravitated towards the USSR, since the USSR was openly anti colonial. Also USSR gave them a protective envelope without openly indicating so, as was done on many issues in the UN and elsewhere.

It would be incorrect to suggest that NAM was a totally altruistic in its dealing. For example in the Invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw countries, India did not condemn the same.

As far as Dhola post is concerned, you may read this:

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=...AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Dhola Post 1962 War&f=false

 

[pmaitra]

@pmaitra



That is what I am saying that it was Nehru and india which due to pro USSR attitude forced an otherwise india friendly( even Eisenhower was pro india initially ) to use such langauge. That only proves that US was not as bad as nehruvians made it out to be.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Nehruvians were living in la-la-land and their assessment of the US was wrong.

Yes but we are sure that China had more reasons to attack india in 1962 than 1958 and this is not because of dhola post but GLF effect, cuban missile crisis and internal bickering in chinese communist party.

What is GLF effect?

I did not say Dhola post was a reason why PRC invaded India; I said Dhola post gave PRC the casus belli to invade India. Are you getting me or not? Let me put it simplistically: PRC used Nehru's one mistake at Dhola post to solidify their illegitimate claims on Aksai Chin.

 

[pmaitra]

Again, the whole question is of Perceptions and not ground reality.

Actions by a country indicates, how other countries perceives that country in question.

Your point is well taken, but you are still extremely non-committal and ambiguous on where you stand regarding the Dhola post.

China, today, insists it is still on its "Peaceful Rise".

Though it has not occupied any foreign territories as yet, the manner in which she is rushing headlong into arming herself and its belligerent actions in the South China Sea and in Ladakh or assisting rebels against the Myanmar Govt, gives rise to the perception in the international circles, that China is not on a 'Peaceful Rise' but is on the brink of embarking on armed interventions to make good her claims on other countries' territories. In short. it is Perceptions!

Ever since Independence, India has spurned US overtures, starting from the famous 'Dulles Go Back' graffiti plastered all over when he was to visit India.

This will indicate the US perception of India at that time.

Dulles will Visit India under Adverse Conditions

The Times-News - Google News Archive Search

Also

American attitudes toward India tend to be based on ignorance and, as a result, American policy toward that country is often one of neglect. Anglo-American concerns as well as U.S.-Soviet competition and Indo-Pakistani rivalry have complicated Washington's bilateral ties with New Delhi. ...

President George Bush refused to certify that Pakistan was not engaged in developing nuclear weapons, and U.S. aid to Pakistan was suspended. But American beliefs about India were deep-rooted--especially among legislators--and attitudes were slow to adjust to changing international circumstances. Hostility toward India lingered on Capitol Hill as late as 1995, when the Brown Amendment was passed, because of India's relationship with Russia--even though Moscow was no longer regarded as a threat to the United States....

The most compelling factor in Washington's bilateral relations with New Delhi is the belief that India was on the wrong side of the two most important conflicts of the past century: World War II and the Cold War. Although millions of Indian soldiers served in the British army, the Indian National Congress refused to support the war against the Axis powers as long as London would not promise independence. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was viewed as "clearly pro-Russian," and Indian nonalignment was seen as "a major obstacle to US efforts to rally and unite the free nations of Asia in the struggle against Soviet world domination."(n25) Although there is little institutional memory in Washington, those perceptions have remained consistent in the State Department and on Capitol Hill.(n26)

CHANGING PERCEPTIONS OF INDIA IN THE U


In so far as USSR's assistance to India, it would be rather ungrateful to say 'slightly' pro India.

A cordial relationship with India that began in the 1950s represented the most successful of the Soviet attempts to foster closer relations with Third World countries. The relationship began with a visit by Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru to the Soviet Union in June 1955 and Khrushchev's return trip to India in the fall of 1955. While in India, Khrushchev announced that the Soviet Union supported Indian sovereignty over the Kashmir region and over Portuguese coastal enclaves.

Read more at Soviet Union-India

One could calculate the military equipment India got at very low rates as also the immense assistance to India given by the US towards building the various industrial behemoths, which sustained India's industrial growth inspite of the crippling fiscal situation.

As far as the Non Alignment Movement was concerned, it was definitely pro Russia since it was formed by those who were newly independent nations and were suspicious of their erstwhile colonial rulers, who were all from the West and gravitated towards the USSR, since the USSR was openly anti colonial. Also USSR gave them a protective envelope without openly indicating so, as was done on many issues in the UN and elsewhere.

It would be incorrect to suggest that NAM was a totally altruistic in its dealing. For example in the Invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw countries, India did not condemn the same.

Agreed, except that part where you said as far as NAM is concerned, India was pro-USSR (Russia sic.). Either you are non-Aligned, or you are pro-USSR or pro-USA. You cannot be in the water and be dry at the same time. NAM advocates cooperating with both the world powers, but being in the camp of neither. To interpret that as India being pro-USSR is misguided.

Again, all correct facts, and it is your interpretation that I think is wrong.

The part in red is not a correct premise. I think by the Goa Liberation War, it was well established that the US was also against colonialism, although even earlier than that, the US had prodded UK to give freedom to India.

 

[Ray]

@pmaitra,

Here is the one on Dhola Post.

As far as Dhola post is concerned, you may read this:

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=...AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Dhola Post 1962 War&f=false

by Gen KV Krishna Rao.

 

[Ray]

As far as the NAM is concerned, at the Cairo preparatory meeting the participants discussed in detail the principal aims and objectives of a policy of non-alignment. These were adopted as criteria for membership as well as for the invitations to the First Summit Conference.

One of the The criteria was::

* The country should have adopted an independent policy based on the coexistence of States with different political and social systems and on non-alignment or should be showing a trend in favour of such a policy.

How is it that the NAM did not support the independence struggle of the Hungarians and the Czechs and did not criticise the Warsaw Pact's action putting down the revolution?

I don't think it requires elaboration that USSR headed the Warsaw Pact.

* The country concerned should be consistently supporting the Movements for National Independence

 

[pmaitra]

As far as the NAM is concerned, at the Cairo preparatory meeting the participants discussed in detail the principal aims and objectives of a policy of non-alignment. These were adopted as criteria for membership as well as for the invitations to the First Summit Conference.

One of the The criteria was::

* The country should have adopted an independent policy based on the coexistence of States with different political and social systems and on non-alignment or should be showing a trend in favour of such a policy.

How is it that the NAM did not support the independence struggle of the Hungarians and the Czechs and did not criticise the Warsaw Pact's action putting down the revolution?

I don't think it requires elaboration that USSR headed the Warsaw Pact.

* The country concerned should be consistently supporting the Movements for National Independence

@Ray Sir, you are completely deviating off the point.

I am contending what you and @MAYURA said, that India was pro-USSR. Feel free to continue to view it that way. As a matter of fact, India was working with CIA to train Tibetan refugees. India had a stated policy of not being in any camp. Nehru was extremely friendly with Tito, who despite being communist, kept Yugoslavia out of the Warsaw Pact. we can go on arguing on that, but that is beyond the point. India was Non-Aligned.

Let us agree to disagree.

 

[pmaitra]

@Ray Sir,

Please have a look at the map here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cMahon_Line_Simla_Accord_Treaty_1914_Map1.jpg

I think it is about time to be honest with ourselves, instead of obfuscating. The McMahon Line as agreed by the British and Tibetan Plenipotentiaries is congruent with the current lines of control in the Tawang Area.

 

[pmaitra]

@pmaitra,

Here is the one on Dhola Post.

As far as Dhola post is concerned, you may read this:

Prepare Or Perish: A Study of National Security - K.V.Krishna Rao - Google Books

by Gen KV Krishna Rao.

I am sorry, but the article you presented does not say where the McMahon line is w.r.t. Dhola post.

Moreover, the article mentions "Southern bank of Namka Chu river." What exactly is this "southern bank?" Namka Chu flows north-to-south, not east-to-west. There is no such thing as southern bank.

I am seriously going to doubt, and I mean no disrespect, that whether Gen KV Krishna Rao really knows what he is talking about.

 

[pmaitra]

Moreover, the article mentions "Southern bank of Namka Chu river." What exactly is this "southern bank?" Namka Chu flows north-to-south, not east-to-west. There is no such thing as southern bank.

I am seriously going to doubt, and I mean no disrespect, that whether Gen KV Krishna Rao really knows what he is talking about.

@Ray Sir, I take that back.

Namka Chu flows North-West to South-East, like a diagonal. I see where Dhola Post was established.

From what I can see, it is to the North of the McMahon Line.

Let me know if you disagree, or think I am wrong (which I could be).

 

[Ray]

No, I must visit the area to give a report!

 

[Tridev123]

Which territory has Chinese captured by waging war?
They tried to do that in Vietnam and look at how it went.

This is not about listing negatives, this is about having all our facts in aeis well as prepare strategy.
I am sure better people than us have planned this to a T.

Man, the Chinese are one of the biggest predators of outside territory.
Have you forgotten Aksai Chin which is ours. They held Pakistan by their balls and ate part of their POK. They are eating territory in the South China Sea belonging to the Philippines,( Vietnam, etc. They ate territory in Bhutan and Nepal by bullying them.
Latest big attempt was in Doklam which India helped repulse.
And the highly unfortunate fact. They eat our territories along the border every year, a few square kilometres at least. Please read reports on Arunachal Pradesh.
They are cunning b**s**ds.
We have also unilaterally gifted territory to Bangladesh and SriLanka(Katchatheevu Island).
Transfer of enclaves - Bangladesh border. Please go through reports. We gave more than we got in return.

No doubt there are professionals who think out any military action and we cannot replace the. But what is our contribution?. Should we demoralise them by only talking about negatives. Why the hell are we scared of the population of POK. The terrorism in Kashmir is almost 100% a Pakistani phenomenon. Providing money, men, training, leadership etc. Take away the Pakistani factor and it will peter out into a very manageable activity like in the North East. E

Lastly the whole of Tibet is captured territory. Captured by the Chinese at the time of Independence in India. Don't forget. We should have prevented it by taking the help of the US. At that time only the US was anti Chinese and a big power.

 

[Hellfire]

Have you forgotten Aksai Chin which is ours.

Are you sure on that? I would suggest you to read about tributes paid by the region as also Gilgit-Baltistan Khans to the Tibetans as also by what was NEFA in 1947. It is quite an interesting story.

They held Pakistan by their balls and ate part of their POK.

What territory?

Lastly the whole of Tibet is captured territory. Captured by the Chinese at the time of Independence in India. Don't forget. We should have prevented it by taking the help of the US. At that time only the US was anti Chinese and a big power.

Not as per GoI till 10:10 am today when I started replying.

 

[Tridev123]

Are you sure on that? I would suggest you to read about tributes paid by the region as also Gilgit-Baltistan Khans to the Tibetans as also by what was NEFA in 1947. It is quite an interesting story.



What territory?



Not as per GoI till 10:10 am today when I started replying.

Are you for real?. I do not want to argue with a person who believes we were not unjustly robbed of our territory. Please become the PM and hand over J&K to Pakistan and Arunachal pradesh to China. Om. Shanthi.

 

[Tridev123]

Are you sure on that? I would suggest you to read about tributes paid by the region as also Gilgit-Baltistan Khans to the Tibetans as also by what was NEFA in 1947. It is quite an interesting story.



What territory?



Not as per GoI till 10:10 am today when I started replying.

Pakistan donated land to China in the Karakoram area. Please refer to maps of POK in 1962 and in 1970.They will tell the tale.

 

[Hellfire]

Are you for real?. I do not want to argue with a person who believes we were not unjustly robbed of our territory. Please become the PM and hand over J&K to Pakistan and Arunachal pradesh to China. Om. Shanthi.

Are you aware of the facts? Did you check up the points I put out? Have you countered them as being wrong?

Or are you the typical ignorant who indulges in rhetoric, who does not know the inherent contradiction in our stance over the border disputes with China, or understands how the Sino-Pak border agreement is transitory, and irrelevant?