Bharat Rakshak

Which part of my post dont you guys get? Dont hijack this thread. Go elsewhere- open your own thread. Thanks, ramana

indeed? in that case how do you explain the annexation of Xinkiang from the Turkic tribes who lived there in the Manchu period (if i recall correctly)? were they not hunted down and 'pacified' similarly to the native americans in the great steppe? no aggression there ofcourse!

using the Qing claims to territory are akin to India claiming the Ashokan boundaries, or for that matter the Italians claiming most of Europe - which might be an interesting concept but rather pointless

Yes china "resolves" border disputes with its neighbours. It resolved disputes with Burma based on the Mcmahon line. On that same principle, china officially accepted the McMahon line as the international border with India in 1954, if I'm not mistaken. Then by 1959, it did not. Then, they crossed and annexed Aksai china and later attacked India. India up to the very end was trying through diplomacy to reach a settlement while china was preparing for war and wanted India to accept an illegal occupation of Aksai chin. Now they're making more claims on India. And almost daily they're contstantly trying to provoke the troops at the border into fighting.

In 1959, they were seeking friendship of pakistan while Nehru was seeking a resolve to the border question.

Considering that we gave them Tibet and Nehru was the one who seeked friendhip with these people, who's to blame?

What can you say about such people who executed wounded men in war?

There was a reference to a timesofindia article on this folder about the war.

u claim qing dynasty as border, in that case russia should claim its former soviet republics based on imperial russia from this century?

[Edited by Admin]
Note The user's displayed name is quite clearly displayed on the board. I have edited the post.

Based on the 1962 war, I think India is more than capable to take care of the yellow threat if such a need arises.

Of course you have to:

1. Get rid of pakistan first in order to free more resources.

2. Forget meaningless diplomacy, it only stalls the inevitable.

3. It's no secret china has massive resources/logistics at its disposal and more mobile. What resources does India have to be mobile and effective? Can it acquire the resources needed in case of war? India is very good at the defensive, but what of our offensive capabilities in regard to logistics and mobility?

Mobility and logistics are the key if you want to win a war, if you're on the offensive of course. You decide where to fight and how.

Keep in mind that the airforce wasn't used in 1962 and a only a trinkle of the army was utilised for the conflict where heavy casualties were inflicted upon the enemy. This considering that the IA were completely unprepared for the new climate. Once India relocated more resources to the front, advancement for the enemy became much more difficult.

If I remember correctly, it was at the advice of the american ambassador that the airforce wasn't used cuz of chinese retaliation, which was nonsense since their potential impact on India was limited due to high altitiude and lack of air to air refueling.

Point is: Don't listen to others (especially when they have ulterior motives), have faith in yourself and anything is possible. See the 1962 incident as a good preparation for future conflicts.

Chong seems to be ignorant of the fact that Manchus are a minority in their own land and have of course been "sinoised" according to him. Same in inner mongolia. Why not in Tibet or Turkestan?

Even in his own words, he says that goverment policies were intentionally meant to favour hans e.g "only hans could trade", hence other ethnic groups were forced to comply and become "sino" or be destroyed. They even called their mongolian masters "foreigners" "non-chinese" and "barabarians", same reference for other people as well. Hey, maybe china should join mongolia since they were part of the mongol empire..

He's even ignorant of the fact that Tibetan is not related to chinese, script is completely different, culture is different and even racially/genetically they're not related to each other. Same goes for the Turks in Turkestan.

no, the chinese did not have sufficient forward bases in tibet for their aircraft, also IAF capabilities and equipment were superior. the reference to high could be that operating out of tibet, the PLAAF aircraft would probably not be able to carry large warloads

AFAIK no one was doing air-to-air refueling in the early 60's, certainly not operationally

<B>People:</B> as per the Admins' request, I've started a new thread in the "Strategic Issues and International Relations" folder, titled <A HREF="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005380">India, China and Tibet</A>. Please take your history discussions there. I will post my response to Mr. Tang over there.

To ATUL:
ATUL, I have questions to ask you. Please go to the new thread in the "Strategic Issues and International Relations" folder, titled as "India, China and Tibet". Thanks.

Are we not off target again?

Just as a quick history lesson... The "Turkic tribes" in the area now called Xinjiang have been there since the 10th century, not the Manchu period. The Tang dynasty, as far back as the 6th century, had control over the area... and some of its top generals were of (approximately) Turkic ethnicity... but this control was lost with its collapse.

Now, on to your point. The history of China shows cycles of invasions by aggressive nomadic conquering "foreigners", who manage to rule China for centuries... before slowly losing their aggressive/expansionist tendencies after becoming 'Sinified' in perspective.

The Mongol hordes were definitely aggressive and expansionist; that's how they conquered China, and consequently all of the neighboring areas. The Chinese dynasty established by the Mongols (under Kublai Khan) was *not* expansionist.

The first two centuries of the Manchu Qing dynasty was expansionist. They conquered Xinjiang and Taiwan after conquering the Ming dynasty that preceded it, established control over Tibet, obtained loyalty oaths from the Mongols...

... but what new territory was conquered by the Qing after the end of the 18th century? None.

A stable, long-lasting Chinese state is not expansionist or aggressive. It's just not in traditional Chinese culture. That doesn't mean regimes (especially foreign-influenced regimes) can't lead China into a period of aggression, but by all indication, China is not in danger of such acts now.

Uh, the Qing dynasty came to an end with the formation of the Republic of China in 1911... which proclaimed itself a new successor government of the same Chinese state. Ashoka is pre-Christ, and the Roman empire dissolved a few centuries later.

You don't see a difference?

Whoops. Taking my reply over to the new thread.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chon Tang:
[QB]Are we not off target again?

>Just as a quick history lesson... The "Turkic tribes" in the area now called Xinjiang have been there since the 10th century, not the Manchu period.

yes i know that, they were there from the dawn of time when man first tamed the horse. they were hunted down in the late ming and early manchu periods once the other mongol/turkic central asian states eroded and collapsed as the golden horde was replaced by the power of muscovy across the volgan steppe and over the urals

>The Tang dynasty, as far back as the 6th century, had control over the area...

yes of course, hence those beautiful tang bactrian camels - but once again conquest of non Han tribes who raided into the middle kingdom and had to be pacified. genghiz himself wiped out one of those states - hsi hsia, who had emerged from a semi nomadic origin (battle of the ice river if i remember correctly)

>Now, on to your point. The history of China shows cycles of invasions by aggressive nomadic conquering "foreigners", who manage to rule China for centuries... before slowly losing their aggressive/expansionist tendencies after becoming 'Sinified' in perspective.

yes, much like India and Iran - the eternal conflict of the nomads vs. the civilised and their eventual absorbtion into urban life that was so much more seductive than roughing it out on the saddle (like the Scythians and Huns who settled in India)

>The Mongol hordes were definitely aggressive and expansionist; that's how they conquered China, and consequently all of the neighboring areas. The Chinese dynasty established by the Mongols (under Kublai Khan) was *not* expansionist.

no? is that why kubilai so forcibly subdued the Sung? the Koreans? Burmese? invaded Siam? Japan? - leading to the creation of the concept of Kamikaze as the invasion fleet foundered off Hakodate Bay in 'divinely inspired' tsunamis? (the samurais polished off everyone else who actually made it onto the beachhead)

After kubilai and some consolidation apart - the yuan settled down to the old wine sipping and sampling the 3000 concubines sent up from the provinces each year and lost interest in the rough and tumble of life on the march - the inevitable decline of each martial dynasty

the western borders were roughly at peace given that they were being run by Kubilai's brothers and nephews who paid him tribute - that would have changed if Tamerlane hadn't died enroute to the invasion of Yuan China to contest the position of great khan

>The first two centuries of the Manchu Qing dynasty was expansionist. They conquered Xinjiang and Taiwan after conquering the Ming dynasty that preceded it, established control over Tibet, obtained loyalty oaths from the Mongols...

yes my mistake in mixing the Yuan with the Qing, apologies - it was an elementary error. also note that kubilai initiated the invasion of tibet and met with mixed results, on leaving he claimed tribute and said he'd be back

>... but what new territory was conquered by the Qing after the end of the 18th century? None.

indeed not, since they ran into expanding Russian, British and American empires. but odd things still happened, e.g. when Qing traders went over the himalayas to bhutan - they came back to the court in Beijing and to impress everyone, claimed that the king of bhutan agreed to be a vassal - when he'd done no such thing, thereby leading to the chinese claim on bhutan!!

>A stable, long-lasting Chinese state is not expansionist or aggressive. It's just not in traditional Chinese culture. That doesn't mean regimes (especially foreign-influenced regimes) can't lead China into a period of aggression, but by all indication, China is not in danger of such acts now.

so Communist China is essentially a foriegn dynasty? (and yes, one can argue that it might be!)

more importantly - each chinese dynasty regardless of communists, kuomintan, qing, ming - all seem to hold on to the yuan philosophy of 'all lands from sunrise to sunset will yield to the great khan' - so frankly unless the president of mongolia comes and asks, i don't think the rest of us need to entertain the concept

and as i recall the last descendant of Genghiz and Tamarlane died in her sleep in a Delhi haveli a few years ago

Uh, no. Like I said, the Turkic Uyghurs arrived in the 9th century from an area to the Northeast, approximately the cross section of Manchuria, Siberia, and outer Mongolia.

Much of the rest of you say isn't exactly accurate, but is mostly correct. And yes, I admit I had ignored Kublai Khan's less than accomplished attempts to extend... but none of that is really relevant to the central point of China's "pattern" of non-expansionism.

I don't really understand where this comes from. You yourself admitted the Yuan emperors after Kublai Khan were hardly aggressive, and that the Qing empire was similarly reclusive after Kangxi, Qianlong and the early emperors. You mention that the Qing had run into expanding Western empires; this is certainly the truth, but China remained a dominant world power (economically and socially, if not militarily) well into the 19th century. And yet for around a hundred years, the Qing had fallen to the pattern you yourself seem to take for granted... that martial instincts are dulled by time spent in the comforts of a sedentary culture.

So, what's this talk about all lands east and west? You'd have us believe the Ming, which didn't even find it worthwhile to *trade* with foreign lands, wanted to claim their territory? Your post seems contradictory in proof and summary.

Gentlemen:

May I request you to shift your interesting, if irrelevant from the point of view of this thread, posts to the other thread? Even if there is an offending post, any responses can be in the other thread. (In fact, I think the other thread also is more historical than strategic and hence needs to be in the History forum, but that is for the admins to decide).

Let this thread remain focussed on the 1962 war, as the title suggest. Thanks.

what happened to the good old tales of the 1962 war on this thread??

ok - lets continue on the strategic issues folder...

How Nehru Let us down : Part III

You can scrap the ARMY ! :confused:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/dec/18chin.htm

"I remember many a time when our senior generals came to us, and wrote to the defence ministry saying that they wanted certain things... If we had had foresight, known exactly what would happen, we would have done something else... what India has learnt from the Chinese invasion is that in the world of today there is no place for weak nations... We have been living in an unreal world of our own creation."
Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajya Sabha, 1963

Instead of "I", Nehru used the collective "we", a clear indication of his reluctance to own up his own mistakes as a man.

"The fact of the matter is that Nehru felt a gnawing of conscience throughout this episode. He knew that the blame for the disaster was more his than that of his loyal friend [defence minister V K Krishna Menon]," says journalist and historian Durga Das.

The roots of politicisation of the army are to be found in Nehru's hatred for the man in uniform. Soon after Independence the first commander-in-chief of the Indian armed forces, General Sir Robert Lockhart, presented a paper outlining a plan for the growth of the Indian Army to Prime Minister Nehru.

[color=blue]Nehru's reply</font>: "We don't need a defence plan. Our policy is non-violence. We foresee no military threats. [color=red]You can scrap the army.</font> The police are good enough to meet our security needs."

>> My Comments: The above reply of Mr JLNehru, makes me think if Jawahar Lal Nehru was even a fit candidate to lead a nation as big and as diverse as India. India definitely missed Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel.

Quote, from another board..

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/dec/20chin.htm

India mistook Chinese restraint for weakness and paid the price, says Rong Ying

muddar, Read Barat Karnad's book Nuclear Weapons and National Security to get a complete picture of Nehru's idea of national security and military. All your questions will be answered.

Has anyone here read "Peking versus Delhi" by George Patterson (New York, F.A.Praeger (1964))?
Any comments? Patterson also seems to have written another book called, I think, Requiem for Tibet.

Does anyone know whether Dhola peak is SW of Hathungla, W-SW of the same, or W-NW of it?

I have come across 8 sources that all have different opinions of where Dhola should be, while Hatungla more or less is in the same place.

This is significant because Dhola's position is crux for PRC claims on the position of the McMahon boundary in this area.

Any ideas, anyone?

-Harshavardhan

PS, John Lin, as I mentinoed once in a previous SI thread, LtCom. Barnard uses only Chinese-sympathetic sources to deal with the legal basis of the war... even goes so far as to call Maxwell's book "the most thorough, comprehensive and objective coverage of the 1962 Border War." (This was written back when Maxwell was in vogue.) The two Indian sources he allows himself to glance at - though juding from his paper that is simply all he did - he calls "biased." :confused:

This is hardly a third-party look at the war. It is no surprise that this take is generally categorized as ignorable - except, that is, to the poster arguing for the Chinese position.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The 1962 Sino-Indian War Website.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
PLEASE VISIT THE LET INDIA DEVELOP petition today!

Sign the Petition. Spread the Word. Spread the Cause.

Anyone?

Harsh, have you looked at the publication by the Ministry of External Affairs GoI, entitled "Reports of the officials of the govts of India & the People's Republic of China on the boundary question" ? it was published in 1961 & includes whole lists of questions & answers from either side on specific boundary features. Incidentally, of the 118 clarifications requested by India, China found it convenient to answer to only 59, unlike the Indian side's replying to all 57 questions put forth by China.
Perhaps you could find something there -- the reports are too detailed & unindexed to make it easy reading.

Chang Tang,

Some here found you sarcastic. I dont agree with them. I find you ludicrously humourous.

Happy New Year and may it keep you happy.

There seem to be some fairly detailed maps of Tibet & its borders at the Tibet Map Institute page at
http://www.tibetmap.com
Harsh, you might want to take a look at them. I could not find Dhola or HathungLa there, though. Arunachal Pradesh, Assam etc all fall under the title "Assam" on the maps.