I will agree to disagree strongly with Vivek's statement that we must not push and humiliate peking or islamabad too badly lest they go nuclear etc etc.
Imo the best way to deal with wanton aggression is to expose and slap them around, making the lose face. This will no doubt trigger a palace coup where the die hards who started the fire will get slapped in irons and two sets of people could take over. The first set would be more realists who will talk peace and end the war , the second set could be wild eyed 2nd arty types to whom every problem can be solved with a 500kt nuke.
If its the first set, the war will end on status quo borders with cheen deeply shamed and shown up in east asia. Our stock will hugely rise as someone who took the first heavy blows but landed the last bloody kicks on the dragons belly.
If its the nuclear jihadis we need to ensure we retain the ability to flatten the top30 cheen cities after absorbing a surprise and uncalled for cheen first strike. If we can do that we should be at peace. If not, we must spare no effort to teach that state asap.
I am afraid playing by rules is just a invitation to more atrocity. Disrupt the rules and watch people squirm in discomfort....
One must play by rules, if the idea is to be a follower or a mid-level player. But, if one wants to reach the top, then eventually the rules will have to be tweaked, pushed, redefined or even invalidated(in short, argue that the rules in their present form do not or cannot apply to you, so breaking them is not really 'breaking' them).
I think the Chinese try to fight in their periphery or in others' field. The one greatest deterrent for them is to take the war/battle into their heartland(where even if they win, they lose because of the various factors). They fight in India or Tibet, so that war/battle will not come to the heart of mainland China.
I view china's claim on Tawang in similar fashion. Not just Tawang, but also other territorial claims made by China which has annoyed many countries(including India). The logic, as far as I understand, is that the new claims are meant to hide the already vast territorial aggressions made by china. For example, by keeping Tawang in focus, Tibet is protected. As long as, India is kept occupied by Tawang, India will not think about Tibet. The ploy is to keep others in defensive mode, so that they so not think of going on offensive on China. The bluster and aggressive posture is meant to stop others from making any moves on China because the others are too busy in defending their own space. But, this doctrine required that the opponents must not be pushed to the wall lest they become desperate. And chinese follow this. They never push the opponents to the wall. They take what they get and declare victory, even while keeping the threat of future action/claims alive. As far as they are concerned, any gain is a bonus. The real aim is to protect the mainland(the aim is to stop anyone from even thinking of chinese mainland by keeping them embroiled in the periphery, preferably in the opponents territory). Both their diplomatic and geo-political moves can be explained by this theory, IMHO.
In essence, the chinese are trying to create buffer zone between their mainland and others through aggressive occupation and claims. So, Tibet is a buffer zone between India and China. Tawang and Nepal are buffer zones between India and Tibet. If India concedes Tawang, then a newer buffer zone between Tawang and India will have to be found... When India acknowledged Tibet as part of China, then China had to create a newer 'dispute' in Tawang so that India can be kept on defensive. The doctrine is to keep the others on defensive, so that they don't become offensive. To keep others on defensive, china has to be on offensive... When others concede to China(hoping that China will not be on offensive anymore), then they force China to become more offensive(because China has to create a newer dispute to keep others on offensive).
The strategy to handle such a doctrine is to try to dismantle/weaken the mainland. Because, when the mainland collapses, the peripheries automatically collapse(from the grip of china). The general wisdom is to first win the periphery and then go to mainland. China is trying to use this 'general wisdom' in its favor by pushing the periphery deep into others territory and by keeping periphery as large as possible to protect the mainland. So, the opponents neutralize this concept by stop trying to gain full control/victory in periphery and instead any marginal control/victory in the periphery must be used to mount attack on the mainland. The opponent will have to use China's doctrine on china by keeping china on defensive through aggressive action(diplomatically, geo-politically and militarily).
This doctrine also indicated that the chinese will give up their periphery when the mainland is threatened. So, there is ample chance for Tibet to be taken out of China's grip. China will be ready to take huge loses in periphery rather than tiny loses in thew mainland.
Korean venture was out of fear from anti communist tirade of west. Hence Chinese acted out of fear to preempt the attack on chinese.
The mil-Ind complex of chinese was in shambles after wwII and was no match for US but here they were supported by Soviet and without which perhaps history would have been different...
Chinese political leaders are ambitious but only to mint money (as anywhere the political class is parasitic)
National ambitions are only different masks behind which they try and hide there greed.
Now the chinese ruling elite is confident that they will not be attacked and removed by external power. The are clearly aware that grip on power can be lost by
1. free flow of information by media (and so google was banned)
2. act of external power that is impossibleto hide (nuke attack)
This will surely lead to
Mega tiananmen square type protests and as a consequence the elite would be replaced. Now who in chinese elite would want that... Therefore they would only perform sabre rattling or "Nura Kushti" and will push only to a point. Unlike irrationally rational pakistan, chicom are rationally irrational ... or is it the other way out.. perhaps Doc Shiv ji could phrase it better.
Since, the Chinese are claiming the Tawang, I don't think Chinese will bomb Tawang. They will, if they have to, bomb someother nearby place to send a message/threat that Tawang should not side with India(and at least remain neutral). They will try to drive a wedge between Tawang and Delhi by suitable carrot and stick.
If they bomb the area that they are claiming, then their claim will become invalidated and they will also lose face.