For a layman like me,Absolutely needless controversy. Dominating ground necessarily does not mean height only. The question, after all, is dominating what and why. What are you trying to deny and for that what are you defending? Even if it comes to a line one can not occupy a line everywhere.
In high altitude platue of Ladakh it is obviously the avenues of movement East-West or North-South. The valleys and passes are the keys and not mountain heights which facilitate nothing. Heights that dominate valleys and passes only matter.
Prior to 1962 also India had established only three posts on the Northern bank of Pengang Tso - Shrijap, Shrijap-I and Shrijap-II (East of today's Finger 8). Those were overrun by Chinese tanks. So one can imagine their relative heights. What can an infantry company achieve sitting on top of the icy and snowy height North of Penang Tso. It can only bring observed arty fire into Pengang Tso valley. Then one might as well have an Artillery OP there rather than a company. sitting for nothing. If the Chinese have gone on Top, let them go to freeze there.
The same applies to Galwan valley. It is the valley which is required to be denied and not its high peaks like Ajay Shukla was trying to profess.
Wouldn't heights only be occupied during active conflict?
Else its mostly the valleys which have enough space to hold the region by providing land for setting up bases and protection from arty. Apart from easy access to roads.
Drones too can be used for Arty spotting and correction i feel.
And openly visible heights near Pangang So can be easily shelled by arty or mortar.