I am not sure what you've got against non-military stakeholders of Govt machinery. I'd not prejudice based on some incidents, and reserve it exclusively for bureaucracy. But then again, no reason for us to agree.
You want Armed Forces to be part of Indian Diplomatic efforts ? Sure, I have nothing against it. Did not pronounce that forces cannot participate in dialogue. They do, even today. But they cannot take over the entire function from Govt administration. Who all get to participate in that diplomatic process is decision of elected Govt and its ministries. If you think armed forces are getting left out, its a fair complaint. I do not share that view however. And beside all that, it does not faze the notion that diplomacy is essential in resolving this conflict with China. I bid for GOI when it comes to geopolitics, not just armed forces.
And I firmly believe that Govt so far has done good job in managing China using diplomacy (with/without armed forces being part of that process). If one wants symbolism, and uniformed generals in front of camera for the optics, then that's a different discussion; and one with little significance IMO.
I am only saying that in past the people who mattered have not considered military aspects adequately due to lack of military advice or otherwise while diplomatically engaging our neighbors or others in matters that affect India militarily.
For example, Indian diplomacy never adequately considered the military impact of the return of Haji Pir or return of POWs or even in a recent example the Sharmal Seikh parleys on Siachin. Ambassador Dikxit in Srilanka used to overrule military advice that ultimately landed us in a fiasco. Diplomacy being restrive in Kargil is also debatable.
It is not my case to appoint Military Generals as Diplomats but only to consider military aspects of diplomacy adequately. Only the China affairs people handling the issue in MEA are deeply embroiled with the military but not others. Otherwise, without proper military aspects, one lands with a thing like McMahon line or a Redcliff line which neither follows features nor marked properly on maps or has no military advantage. On the other hand we have a LOC with Pakistan properly marked and delineated by two military officers of India and Pakistan and we have no issue on its alignment except where it was left imaginary in the treaty. Though I admit it was not agreed to mark it on military factors.
Similarly large portion of LAC decision must emanate from the Army who have to be there and defend it rather than from MHA or MEA. From 1986 onwards after India China signed BPTA we have not been able to define even the exact nature of dispute leave aside fixing LAC. If the Chinese were happily resolving their country's borders with Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal and Myanmar based on British treaties why not with India. Why should McMahon bite them?
I dare say that Indian diplomacy was always restrictive and prohibitive on the Army in not allowing them even a single initiative on LAC with China thereby emboldening PLA to deal with LAC in a freehand manner. Had Indian Army also intruded ten km ahead of Demchok- or Dichu- Kibithu then the Chinese would certainly have got a military message.
Today we have landed up with a situation where the PLA will always have an upper hand because they have the liberty to wrest the initiative and the Indian Army can only react. Let us for once give a free hand to IA and see what they can do...
Seems you ain't a fan, what? I just bought a Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 for Rs 60,000 and it's as good as an Apple iPad Pro that costs the earth and which I lost at the Dubai Airport last Dec!
Jeeez!
Kadi ninda gave perfect reply to 1962 war question. 
and spread BS then. 
