Anandhu Krishna
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2017
- Messages
- 1,086
- Likes
- 4,060
So...!! India should be a puppet of US now.....!! da fuq.
India China LAC & International Border Discussions
- Thread starter tsunami
- Start date
- Status
Sanglamorre
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2019
- Messages
- 5,733
- Likes
- 26,345
1. Fear because they got beat bad by IA
2. General was changed before the fight. In fact, the new one is the reason for this fight.
3. If I'm reading this right, there were some MMA guys mixed in the clash itself. They're likely stepping up MMA because maybe those ones were the only ones who held on, and the normal soldiers simply got beaten black and blue.
BangaliBabu
Regular Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2019
- Messages
- 774
- Likes
- 2,323
China failing to silence upset families of soldiers killed in Galwan face-off
Washington [US], June 28 (ANI): Despite suffering multiple casualties in a violent faceoff with India in Galway Valley area, China has still not disclosed how many of its soldiers were killed in the incident.
www.aninews.in
ANI on full-automatic mode
Sridhar_TN
Regular Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
- Messages
- 822
- Likes
- 2,217
looks sooo weird man....
One more thing I notice is why Xi’s Head is always tilted to the side lol....
One more thing I notice is why Xi’s Head is always tilted to the side lol....
BangaliBabu
Regular Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2019
- Messages
- 774
- Likes
- 2,323
Raisina Manual to deal with China’s rogue party-state
Abhinav Pandya
Published : June 27, 2020, 7:45 pm | Updated : June 27, 2020, 7:45 PM
Army Chief General M.M. Naravane commended troops for their high morale, as he visited forward areas in Eastern Ladakh and reviewed the operational situation on the ground on Wednesday. ANI
China’s recent incursions in Pangong Tso and Galwan valley have proved the futility of engaging or appeasing China, making it amply clear that as long as CCP continues to exist, China will be revanchist, expansionist and India’s adversary number one. That said, it would be irrational for India to trust China in the future. Keeping borders vague helps China in bogging down India as a continental power. Further, China needs roads in the border regions of the western sector to link them with BRI, Xi’s flagship foreign policy initiative. India’s infrastructure development in the border regions acts as a significant hindrance.
Under Mao’s reincarnate Xi Jinping, CCP has long-term imperial ambitions of world domination. Hence, in the future, China’s expansionist encroachments are highly likely to escalate in number, frequency, and magnitude, unless India abandons Dalai Lama, accepts a completely subordinate status, and acts accordingly, willingly surrenders Arunachal, Ladakh, and whatever new claims of sovereignty that will float from Beijing, as per their strategic interests. After all, a sub-continental power in its backyard must accept its subordinate status and do as what they say—yes, that is what the CCP thinks. However, China wants all that without a full-blown war, which it fears. There lies the weakness, intended to be compensated by creating smokescreens of aggression and threats of war. Also, because, in China’s understanding of India, the latter’s political leadership is likely to display nervousness in the face of an aggressive force posture, maybe because of some fundamental problem with India’s strategic sub-conscious, China creates smokescreens of an impending war. Delhi must understand it is psychological and pay back in the same coin, i.e., by shaping China’s perceptions—making China believe that India is no more a “good boy” and willing to confront in a full-fledged war with international support. An assertive force posture, if not aggressive, if it’s too much to swallow for Delhi, on the diplomatic, military and economic front, avoiding escalation, is the road that India will have to tread on.
After the current crises, India-China relations are likely to be deteriorating further. China-Pakistan axis is likely to intensify its mission and operations against India’s strategic interests in Kashmir and international diplomatic affairs, as the bonding between the two is much deeper, robust, and complex than what India’s strategic community believes. That said, even while having a trade, economic, and technology-based exchanges with China, India needs to consider the Pakistan factor and underlying adversarial intent of the two. A strong force posture against Pakistan is undoubtedly going to challenge and unnerve China. This also includes keeping things “vibrant” in CPEC areas such as Gilgit-Baltistan and Balochistan, diplomatically, morally, and maybe in other useful ways. India has an advantage here. Pakistan is least likely to retaliate with a full-blown war if India initiates firm action against a Pak-sponsored terrorist attack. China is expected to protest, but not very likely to come in the forefront as it will involve other powers.
Hence, it is a great situation that can be used for signalling to China, put psychological pressure on China of being challenged and undermined, and manufacturing occasions for the western powers to be vocal against China in global forums and also act, in the event of China threatening escalation.
Secondly, India must give a befitting military reply to the current audacity of China. Importantly, it will also be a reply to Pakistan and is likely to put brakes in China’s global ambitions. Otherwise, the morale of the armed forces and Indians, in general, will take a plunge into a deep morass of depression. India has been through that post-1962, and indeed, would not like to go through the same experience again. India of 2020 is different from that of 1962, and the present government has shown steadfast determination and political will in the past on various matters of national interest. It must show that resolve, once again. In the current situation, there arises a possibility of a localized sectoral war on the Eastern Front. However, Delhi has to ensure that Nehru’s blunders are not repeated, and the action follows a well-planned strategic and tactical thought-process.
Thirdly, at the policy level, it must be clear that China is India’s number one adversary, and India needs a well-thought-out multi-pronged strategy to counter China. The immediate and the most critical future-target of the government should be to bridge the power asymmetry with China. Further, given that China-led world order is detrimental to India’s interests, Delhi must ensure that it does not strengthen the institutions furthering the strategic interests of China. India’s appeasement of China by participating in SCO, AIIB serves no purpose except strengthening China as a global power. Hence, India seriously needs to rethink the utility of participating in such bodies to its strategic interests. Even WTO, after Chinese dominance, makes no sense for India. Indian diplomats should also stop chasing the mirage of UNSC’s permanent membership. New Delhi’s desire to seek recognition and a birth in the power-club severely dented its confidence. The unrealistic dream led India always to follow “good behaviour” and stay away from forming military alliances, making an assertive force posture and aggressively pursuing infrastructure development in the border regions, in the hope of getting China’s support. The MEA must get it clear that it is a nation’s GDP and military-power that gets permanent seats in UNSC with respect. Begging bowls fetch nothing.
India’s debunking of the “One China” policy has been a long overdue, and now it is time that India formally declares its disagreement with the “One China” policy. Despite decades of India’s silence over China’s imperial ambitions in Tibet, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, India could not make China support India even on one issue of Kashmir. Delhi must shed its inhibitions in closer engagement with the Tibetan government-in-exile, based in India. For India, Taiwan should be China, for all practical, social, and cultural purposes. Even if India does not give formal recognition, India can start closer ties with Taiwan. Indian students should go to Taiwan instead of China. Strengthening of cooperation in defence supplies and intelligence sharing is a great option to explore. More people-to-people contacts should translate into more investments from Taiwan, academic exchanges, and Taiwan activists and leaders getting space and voice in Indian think-tanks, electronic media, and newspapers.
Further, India needs to recognise and extend moral and diplomatic and support to Hong Kong and take a firm stand against Chinese atrocities and human rights violations in Xinjiang. Economically, there is a strong need to develop internal capabilities in manufacturing and infrastructure and make the economic environment congenial for foreign investors. The strategic rivalry with China will be a long-lasting one and to counter an adversary like that India needs superior entrepreneurs, confident diplomats, advanced experts on China, and considerable investments in education and skills to turn its vast population into a productive labour force.
India’s “defensive wedge strategy”, so far practised by alternatively approaching China and Pakistan for peace with the idea of driving a wedge between the two revisionist powers of Asia, has failed. Hence, India must be ready for a twin-front war. On the diplomatic front, intense effort is needed in “external balancing” by vitalising the Indo-Pacific charter, outlined by India’s prominent strategic expert Madhav Nalapat in many of his recent writings. The Quad has to come together to save the rules-based world order from the revanchist ambitions of the Middle-Kingdom. Muscle-flexing in the South China Sea with Americans and the other members of the Quad is highly likely to inject sanity in the minds of CCP’s anachronistic leadership. Further, the Quad must counter Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean Region and firm up its naval footprint.
Delhi must realise that China will respect and fear a powerful India. Even the vast military potential comes to naught if a country does not have confidence in its capability, clear consciousness of its power, and decisive leadership with vision and the skills to use national power.
India needs to transform its strategic thinking and make tough decisions. However, given the rot of opportunism and poor strategic vision that ails Indian bureaucracy, academia, and politics, it looks an extremely challenging task.
Abhinav Pandya is the author of “Radicalization in India: An Exploration” (Pentagon Press, 2019). Currently, he is writing his second book, “Terror Financing in Jammu and Kashmir”. He did his BA from St. Stephen’s College, Delhi and post graduation in Public Affairs from Cornell University, US. He has more than seven years of experience in public policy, counter-terrorism, electoral politics and the development sector in India and the US.
Abhinav Pandya
Published : June 27, 2020, 7:45 pm | Updated : June 27, 2020, 7:45 PM
Army Chief General M.M. Naravane commended troops for their high morale, as he visited forward areas in Eastern Ladakh and reviewed the operational situation on the ground on Wednesday. ANI
China’s recent incursions in Pangong Tso and Galwan valley have proved the futility of engaging or appeasing China, making it amply clear that as long as CCP continues to exist, China will be revanchist, expansionist and India’s adversary number one. That said, it would be irrational for India to trust China in the future. Keeping borders vague helps China in bogging down India as a continental power. Further, China needs roads in the border regions of the western sector to link them with BRI, Xi’s flagship foreign policy initiative. India’s infrastructure development in the border regions acts as a significant hindrance.
Under Mao’s reincarnate Xi Jinping, CCP has long-term imperial ambitions of world domination. Hence, in the future, China’s expansionist encroachments are highly likely to escalate in number, frequency, and magnitude, unless India abandons Dalai Lama, accepts a completely subordinate status, and acts accordingly, willingly surrenders Arunachal, Ladakh, and whatever new claims of sovereignty that will float from Beijing, as per their strategic interests. After all, a sub-continental power in its backyard must accept its subordinate status and do as what they say—yes, that is what the CCP thinks. However, China wants all that without a full-blown war, which it fears. There lies the weakness, intended to be compensated by creating smokescreens of aggression and threats of war. Also, because, in China’s understanding of India, the latter’s political leadership is likely to display nervousness in the face of an aggressive force posture, maybe because of some fundamental problem with India’s strategic sub-conscious, China creates smokescreens of an impending war. Delhi must understand it is psychological and pay back in the same coin, i.e., by shaping China’s perceptions—making China believe that India is no more a “good boy” and willing to confront in a full-fledged war with international support. An assertive force posture, if not aggressive, if it’s too much to swallow for Delhi, on the diplomatic, military and economic front, avoiding escalation, is the road that India will have to tread on.
After the current crises, India-China relations are likely to be deteriorating further. China-Pakistan axis is likely to intensify its mission and operations against India’s strategic interests in Kashmir and international diplomatic affairs, as the bonding between the two is much deeper, robust, and complex than what India’s strategic community believes. That said, even while having a trade, economic, and technology-based exchanges with China, India needs to consider the Pakistan factor and underlying adversarial intent of the two. A strong force posture against Pakistan is undoubtedly going to challenge and unnerve China. This also includes keeping things “vibrant” in CPEC areas such as Gilgit-Baltistan and Balochistan, diplomatically, morally, and maybe in other useful ways. India has an advantage here. Pakistan is least likely to retaliate with a full-blown war if India initiates firm action against a Pak-sponsored terrorist attack. China is expected to protest, but not very likely to come in the forefront as it will involve other powers.
Hence, it is a great situation that can be used for signalling to China, put psychological pressure on China of being challenged and undermined, and manufacturing occasions for the western powers to be vocal against China in global forums and also act, in the event of China threatening escalation.
Secondly, India must give a befitting military reply to the current audacity of China. Importantly, it will also be a reply to Pakistan and is likely to put brakes in China’s global ambitions. Otherwise, the morale of the armed forces and Indians, in general, will take a plunge into a deep morass of depression. India has been through that post-1962, and indeed, would not like to go through the same experience again. India of 2020 is different from that of 1962, and the present government has shown steadfast determination and political will in the past on various matters of national interest. It must show that resolve, once again. In the current situation, there arises a possibility of a localized sectoral war on the Eastern Front. However, Delhi has to ensure that Nehru’s blunders are not repeated, and the action follows a well-planned strategic and tactical thought-process.
Thirdly, at the policy level, it must be clear that China is India’s number one adversary, and India needs a well-thought-out multi-pronged strategy to counter China. The immediate and the most critical future-target of the government should be to bridge the power asymmetry with China. Further, given that China-led world order is detrimental to India’s interests, Delhi must ensure that it does not strengthen the institutions furthering the strategic interests of China. India’s appeasement of China by participating in SCO, AIIB serves no purpose except strengthening China as a global power. Hence, India seriously needs to rethink the utility of participating in such bodies to its strategic interests. Even WTO, after Chinese dominance, makes no sense for India. Indian diplomats should also stop chasing the mirage of UNSC’s permanent membership. New Delhi’s desire to seek recognition and a birth in the power-club severely dented its confidence. The unrealistic dream led India always to follow “good behaviour” and stay away from forming military alliances, making an assertive force posture and aggressively pursuing infrastructure development in the border regions, in the hope of getting China’s support. The MEA must get it clear that it is a nation’s GDP and military-power that gets permanent seats in UNSC with respect. Begging bowls fetch nothing.
India’s debunking of the “One China” policy has been a long overdue, and now it is time that India formally declares its disagreement with the “One China” policy. Despite decades of India’s silence over China’s imperial ambitions in Tibet, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, India could not make China support India even on one issue of Kashmir. Delhi must shed its inhibitions in closer engagement with the Tibetan government-in-exile, based in India. For India, Taiwan should be China, for all practical, social, and cultural purposes. Even if India does not give formal recognition, India can start closer ties with Taiwan. Indian students should go to Taiwan instead of China. Strengthening of cooperation in defence supplies and intelligence sharing is a great option to explore. More people-to-people contacts should translate into more investments from Taiwan, academic exchanges, and Taiwan activists and leaders getting space and voice in Indian think-tanks, electronic media, and newspapers.
Further, India needs to recognise and extend moral and diplomatic and support to Hong Kong and take a firm stand against Chinese atrocities and human rights violations in Xinjiang. Economically, there is a strong need to develop internal capabilities in manufacturing and infrastructure and make the economic environment congenial for foreign investors. The strategic rivalry with China will be a long-lasting one and to counter an adversary like that India needs superior entrepreneurs, confident diplomats, advanced experts on China, and considerable investments in education and skills to turn its vast population into a productive labour force.
India’s “defensive wedge strategy”, so far practised by alternatively approaching China and Pakistan for peace with the idea of driving a wedge between the two revisionist powers of Asia, has failed. Hence, India must be ready for a twin-front war. On the diplomatic front, intense effort is needed in “external balancing” by vitalising the Indo-Pacific charter, outlined by India’s prominent strategic expert Madhav Nalapat in many of his recent writings. The Quad has to come together to save the rules-based world order from the revanchist ambitions of the Middle-Kingdom. Muscle-flexing in the South China Sea with Americans and the other members of the Quad is highly likely to inject sanity in the minds of CCP’s anachronistic leadership. Further, the Quad must counter Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean Region and firm up its naval footprint.
Delhi must realise that China will respect and fear a powerful India. Even the vast military potential comes to naught if a country does not have confidence in its capability, clear consciousness of its power, and decisive leadership with vision and the skills to use national power.
India needs to transform its strategic thinking and make tough decisions. However, given the rot of opportunism and poor strategic vision that ails Indian bureaucracy, academia, and politics, it looks an extremely challenging task.
Abhinav Pandya is the author of “Radicalization in India: An Exploration” (Pentagon Press, 2019). Currently, he is writing his second book, “Terror Financing in Jammu and Kashmir”. He did his BA from St. Stephen’s College, Delhi and post graduation in Public Affairs from Cornell University, US. He has more than seven years of experience in public policy, counter-terrorism, electoral politics and the development sector in India and the US.
Assassin 2.0
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2019
- Messages
- 6,087
- Likes
- 30,705
I believe indian deep state gives everything a chance for decades we accepted Chinese dumping goods and trade deficit so that our relationship with china turn positive but that didn't happened so now we will change our policy.
India for so many years kept relationship with many countries transactional most importantly with bigger powers so that we can do things by weighing them how they benefit Us and rather not get tied up under the policies of other countries.
Till now i don't see any development which even slightly show that government of india is going to bring 360° degree change in it's US policy. We have been coming closer but it's in limit of how much comfortable we feel.
On the other hand USA would off course want to bring india under it's sphere of influence.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,885
- Likes
- 48,599
where did I say that?
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,885
- Likes
- 48,599
Alliance already formed with Australia . Japan and USA possibly South Korea, Vietnam next
AmoghaVarsha
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,372
- Likes
- 2,093
When mmrca started i was in school. I completed school. Did my mbbs. Practised. Did PG. Practised. Did post PG now will start practice again.
Assassin 2.0
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2019
- Messages
- 6,087
- Likes
- 30,705
See technically saying their is nothing new which india and USA and Japan singed this year even under these Chinese crisis we haven't singed some official documents to turn Quad into military type alliance india haven't received any weapons from USA.
Well Australia was aching to join hands with india for a long time but we were not going closer to them because of Chinese influences on Australia.
Their is still a long long way for quad to move ahead with some military objective. For now it's totally non military organization.
We singed military logistic pact with Australia we had similar pact like that with many different countries.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,885
- Likes
- 48,599
quad will become an alliance imo
The Indian Hawk
Regular Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2020
- Messages
- 23
- Likes
- 70
The secret Program/weapon of India could play a major role in a battle.
Kali: Everything About The Secret Beam Weapon Of India
Kali: Everything About The Secret Beam Weapon Of India
Anandhu Krishna
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2017
- Messages
- 1,086
- Likes
- 4,060
Can't trust the US in drinking water let alone military alliance. But that doesn't mean India shouldn't work with them.
Gandaberunda
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
- Messages
- 1,773
- Likes
- 8,450
Even if I join Modi should pass orders to fight
Very interesting, but the language!...one particular line "Any modern weapon that has an electronic chip, circuit or any other kind of wireless technology can destroy it in a 'black' moment" can be misinterpreted! I think what the writer means is that any weapon that has a chip in it can be disabled/destroyed by Kali. Not well written in general.
I think there was an issue with bulkiness, transportability and power supply. Trust that they are working on it!
Assassin 2.0
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2019
- Messages
- 6,087
- Likes
- 30,705
We are going to buy more S-400 
Sanglamorre
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2019
- Messages
- 5,733
- Likes
- 26,345
This looks like more in reply to people saying S400 isn't that good and can be pierced.We are going to buy more S-400
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 4,768
- Likes
- 10,311
China silent over its casualties suffered in Galwan valley during talks: Sources
important extracts:
Sources said the Chinese also sought to blame the Indian side for the clash in Galwan as they have done in their press briefings in Beijing. The Chinese side is also talking about using the 1959 maps given by them at that time to address the problems but that has been rejected by the Indian side. The same set of maps were discussed with India before the 1962 war as well and were rejected by New Delhi. The two sides had fought a war over the issue in 1962.
The Chinese side also conveyed that they had submitted a proposal "a long time back" to discuss and resolve the boundary issue with India and New Delhi should respond to it. The details of the proposal given by the Chinese government are still awaited, the sources said.
During the talks, India also outrightly rejected Chinese allegations of India being an expansionist country by citing the example of the issues by raising the boundary issue between India and Nepal. Nepal has claimed that the area near the Lipu Lakh pass along the Kali river belongs to it. The issue gained prominence when the Nepali Parliament passed a new political map to strengthen its claims over Indian territory.
www.timesnownews.com
important extracts:
Sources said the Chinese also sought to blame the Indian side for the clash in Galwan as they have done in their press briefings in Beijing. The Chinese side is also talking about using the 1959 maps given by them at that time to address the problems but that has been rejected by the Indian side. The same set of maps were discussed with India before the 1962 war as well and were rejected by New Delhi. The two sides had fought a war over the issue in 1962.
The Chinese side also conveyed that they had submitted a proposal "a long time back" to discuss and resolve the boundary issue with India and New Delhi should respond to it. The details of the proposal given by the Chinese government are still awaited, the sources said.
During the talks, India also outrightly rejected Chinese allegations of India being an expansionist country by citing the example of the issues by raising the boundary issue between India and Nepal. Nepal has claimed that the area near the Lipu Lakh pass along the Kali river belongs to it. The issue gained prominence when the Nepali Parliament passed a new political map to strengthen its claims over Indian territory.
China silent over its casualties suffered in Galwan valley during talks: Sources
During the talks, the Chinese side, the sources said, was silent over the number of casualties suffered by it in the Galwan valley clash that took place between the two sides on June 15.
Arihant
Regular Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2015
- Messages
- 600
- Likes
- 3,043
If we will look terrain, any high tech weaponry won't have much use. At last fight will become man to man only. One who occupy first will have upper hand as mountain roads can be blocked after occupying the land. Bombing for highly fortified area covered with SAMs will not work. We have to reoccupy the land like Kargil. Same can be applied on them too if we capture the land first. Here we have plus point of having specialised mountain warfare units.So Surrendering territory is the only option for any of us if we don't want to fight for long and stop war in short time.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 4,768
- Likes
- 10,311
Rogue PLA stands at Ladakh exposed, India salutes the bravehearts | Galwan Ke Balwan
there is an interesting documentary video at the link
www.timesnownews.com
there is an interesting documentary video at the link
Rogue PLA stands at Ladakh exposed, India salutes the bravehearts | Galwan Ke Balwan
#GalwanKeBalwan20 Indian soldiers including one Colonel were martyred amid clashes between the Indian Armed Forces and China's People's Liberation Army at the Galwan Valley in Ladakh. The Galwan river flows West from Aksai Chin before merging with the Shyok river. The Galwan valley cuts through...
- Status
