Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 21 Dec 2014 17:28

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6648 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147 ... 167  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 05 May 2013 10:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 13262
Quote:
The 1962 war from the Chinese perspective had one goal: to annex more formally a region in Eastern Ladakh, called Aksai Chin, through which they had quietly built a road in the late 1950s connecting Tibet to Xinjiang. The region was needed because the Kunling mountains immediately north and the Takla Makan desert farther north, came in the way of a route entirely within Chinese territory. See the region and road here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... n_2004.jpg

Aksai Chin, though putatively in Indian territory (per an agreement between the British and China in 1914, which the Chinese initialed but did not quite ratify, and which the Chinese communists after 1949 denounced as imperialist) was not actively patrolled by the Indian army.

Another disputed region with similar history was "Outer Tibet," which the British, and later India called, "North East Frontier Agency" (NEFA), now the Indian state, Arunachal Pradesh. This lay hundreds of miles southeast.

In 1962, the Chinese conducted a swift offensive in NEFA overrunning the poorly prepared Indian troops in weeks and then paradoxically withdrew just as quickly. Overtly, as the NY Times stories from that period show, they didn't gloat, almost gave the impression of magnanimity.

But that was because the NEFA action was a diversionary move to solidify their defenses in Aksai Chin, which they've kept since.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 May 2013 11:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 May 2012 11:38
Posts: 602
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wow! If Freudian proof was ever needed as to how deeply 1962 has scarred our pysche!

However,

http://www.fandm.edu/politics/politically-uncorrected-column/2002-politically-uncorrected/fighting-the-last-war

Sadly enough, fighting the last war, is often a losing proposition. Conditions change. Objectives change. Strategies change. And you must change. If you don't, you lose.

Ironically, those that believe this is "just like 1962 all over again" are giving an implicit thumbs up to the current govt. , whose entire strategy right now seems to be to avoid a Nehru-like Forward Policy, and avoid giving the Chinese a casus belli

One should respect one's enemy. China is not Pakistan, with dreams of "territorial revenge" that will be gained by engineering an incident. Even Pakistan in Kargil had tactical surprise. The Chinese don't have that here or on in their island disputes.

Gauging the enemy's intent is the hardest part of this job and the reason why the journalists have it mostly wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 May 2013 14:06 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09
Posts: 337
Why don't we do a similar act with them and then see their response?

Hey! I just woke up and realized what am I asking from the current regime is waaaay beyond the current regime which is a band of criminals without any b@@ls. :evil:

JE Menon - Poster warned


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 May 2013 15:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Posts: 1131
Location: India
Whole bunch of inept people with absolutely no patriotism inside had been waiting and they got their chance when UPA came into power.
Their main strategy in politics had always been to let the dacoits steal and not do anything unless they are made sure by the people that they will be rewarded through votes.
In view of this , there are hundreds of examples . one such example is keeping the economy at hindu rate of growth for decades until it became urgent to do something else.
If we expect them to be proactive, then we are at fault.
They have made all components of the govt. machinery impotent and shaky with no accountability at all.
On the other hand China always liked these people and nothing better can happen in their policy towards India if such people come to power.
When they rule everything rots and the chinese wait and watch until the whole system becomes so rotten that it can't protect the country even from smallest of threats, and then they cash their chance .
If china doest cash such an opportunity then they must be sleeping , and if they do so, then it is this lesson they teach us again and again.
Its time we develop a habit of prolonged hatred towards such politicians,their system of governing and everything that supports them,strengthens them.
If we do not do so then we will keep pointing fingers on everything except ourselves. People must take a vow not to cast even a single vote for CONgrez for the next 15-20 yrs and never vote any politian of any party who cannot deliver when it is required.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 May 2013 20:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 1759
India pins hope on tactics that helped end past Chinese incursions


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 May 2013 20:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 16 Apr 2009 17:19
Posts: 414
Location: On a bumpy road with a full bladder
Breaking news on Times of India, both armies to w/d from DBO.

So we need to be watchful on what did the Govt agree as quid pro quo for the withdrawal:

1. Dismantling of existing bunkers.
2. Reduction of patrols.
3. Allow chinese domination on an peaks.
4. Reduce the support for Tibetans.

Hopefully some leaks will start appearing in the press as to what the traitors are upto.

The opposition better not be sleeping with this govt in power.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 May 2013 20:23 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 16 Apr 2009 17:19
Posts: 414
Location: On a bumpy road with a full bladder
China-India stand-off at Ladakh ends, armies withdraw: Press Trust of India

Ladakh: India and China have simultaneously withdrawn their troops from the face-off point at Daulat Beg Oldie near the Line of Actual Control in Ladakh, PTI has reported, quoting official sources. Reportedly, the agreement was reached after high-level negotiations from both sides and the withdrawal was completed at 7:30 pm.

This ends the deadlock that began when Chinese troops set up camp 19 kms into Indian territory in the Depsang Valley in Ladakh. Soon after, India has set up its own post just 500 kms away.

Three flag meetings between commanders on both sides had failed to resolve the stand-off. India wanted the Chinese troops to withdraw completely; China denied any incursion.

Not satisfied with the way talks to resolve the issue were proceeding, India had indicated that it would perhaps cancel External Affairs Minister Salman Khursid's upcoming trip to China, sources had told NDTV earlier this week. Mr Khurshid is scheduled to visit Beijing on May 9. The Chinese Premier, Le Keqiang, is scheduled to visit New Delhi on May 20.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/china ... dia-363030


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 May 2013 20:38 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Apr 2010 08:10
Posts: 172
Just read in Twitter, which sums up any Patriotic Indians thought in 140 words.
Quote:
So China withdraws from India, India withdraws from India & the 'standoff is resolved'. Chinese must be having a hearty laugh.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 May 2013 20:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11769
Not military but Chinese Civil Aviation program

Asia, Future of Aviation China’s booming economy drives aviation development


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 May 2013 21:13 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 01 Dec 2007 01:21
Posts: 93
Location: U.SA/India.
GOI is weak and is run by a puppet MMS and a remote controller PM . It can't take any strong decisions against either China or Pakistan. One should expect this current scenario be handled by Military response rather than through meetings. A country like India can't be militarily weak. Look at Israel. Just a small country and doesn't really care to scare all the Arab neighbours. The country should stop electing the same people again and again. India needs a change in the leadership at the top. MMS must go in asap.
By the way with the so called standoff ending, what happened to all the chinese tents in Ladakh.


Last edited by archan on 05 May 2013 22:36, edited 1 time in total.
You have been told a couple days before but refuse to learn. Second warning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 May 2013 21:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Aug 2012 09:12
Posts: 765
we need to wait and watch what UPA has given up in return for this withdrawal. BTW, it seems that India has built a port in Iran which is further up the Arabian sea, with good land access to Afganistan, to check mate the Chinese move in Paki port of gwadar. Hard to believe that UPA is capable of doing this...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 May 2013 22:35 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Posts: 6277
skganji wrote:
GOI is weak and is run by a puppet MMS and a remote controller PM . It can't take any strong decisions against either China or Pakistan. One should expect this current scenario be handled by Military response rather than through meetings. A country like India can't be militarily weak. Look at Israel. Just a small country and doesn't really care to scare all the Arab neighbours. The country should stop electing the same people again and again. India needs a change in the leadership at the top. MMS must go in asap.
By the way with the so called standoff ending, what happened to all the chinese tents in Ladakh.

This is a militay watch thread, meant to be a repository of news and articles related to their developments, acquisitions, partnerships etc. Kindly don't whine on GoI here. There is plenty of opportunity in other threads. Less discussion, more news.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 May 2013 00:01 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 28 Mar 2013 09:15
Posts: 61
What are the 'modalities' as indicated by the news report. What were the Chinese aiming for all through this time and what did we ended giving up ?
Can't believe they withdraw without getting anything in return. Something is missing here :-?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 May 2013 01:05 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 01 Dec 2007 01:21
Posts: 93
Location: U.SA/India.
archan wrote:
This is a militay watch thread, meant to be a repository of news and articles related to their developments, acquisitions, partnerships etc. Kindly don't whine on GoI here. There is plenty of opportunity in other threads. Less discussion, more news.

Got it. Will stick to the topic in future. Don't need a warning for this .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 May 2013 01:38 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1991
Here's an idea of how the terrain looked on the Chinese side near DBO...

Image

-Vivek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 May 2013 02:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 1759
Reading China’s White Paper
Quote:
:
:
Let's begin with the omissions. Notably, American defence expert James Acton has pointed out that the WP lacks a specific reference to China's policy of "no first use" of nuclear weapons, a promise that China would only use nuclear weapons if others used them against China first, and heretofore considered a central element of China's nuclear strategy. The significance of this omission is still being debated among experts, with some saying it might indicate a major change to Chinese nuclear doctrine, and others saying nothing has changed. The fact that there is now some ambiguity about this is itself damaging and potentially destabilising, and recent news suggests China has reinforced its no-first-use stance in Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty negotiations in Geneva. It is to be hoped that a clarifying statement will come from a more senior source within the Chinese leadership also.
:
:
:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 May 2013 09:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 May 2012 11:38
Posts: 602
Does the US have a no first use policy? Will China, the country that bought the Varyag, through a front company, to use as a floating casino, swear on the little red book and expect the world to believe its no first use policy, if one exists or not.

Ask the average Pakistani if they believe our NFU commitment.


Last edited by RajitO on 06 May 2013 09:22, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 May 2013 09:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26843
Location: NowHere
^^ pic
http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dyna ... 49065g.jpg

maximize and read:
it does not read that they are asking us to go back, instead we are asking them to go back.. i read at the end like "chinese go back".

?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 May 2013 09:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Posts: 313
Location: Bharatvarsha
'You've crossed the border, please go back'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 May 2013 09:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26843
Location: NowHere
ok.. jee, so we crossed the border!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 May 2013 09:58 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 6116
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
From Orbat.Com. Part 1

A good summary of the forces on ground (although, there are some minor factual errors).

Quote:

· For those who like to know these things, the entire East Ladakh Line of Actual Control with China is under 3 Infantry Division at Leh. The division was hastily raised in 1962, and took over two brigades. One brigade, 114, was raised in 1959 when the East Ladakh crisis first erupted, with two battalions of locally raised troops, the Jammu & Kashmir Militia. Later, two regular army battalions were inducted. 70 Brigade arrived as a reinforcement after the war began. Later, 163 Brigade was pulled from the Pakistan border and given to 3 Division as division reserve. Still later, 121 (Independent ) Infantry Brigade was raised at Kargil, and put under the division’s command. At some point after 1963, the East Ladakh LAC was bifurcated between 22 Sector north of the Changchemo River, with 114 Brigade at Chushul and 70 Brigade at the southern end of the line at Demchok. 22 Sector has at least two subsectors, with Sub Sector North being responsible for DBO possibly down to the Galwan River.

· Strictly speaking, our intrepid South Asia correspondent Mandeep Bajwa should be telling you all this, as he knows much more about the independent Indian Army’s history that the Editor. The above is to Editor’s best recollection, but likely he’s made errors as he was always more concerned with orbats than history. Still is. But Mandeep is mad at Editor for some reason (he won’t explain why) and refuses to answer emails and chat requests. Please twitter him @MandeepBajwa and tell him to get with the program.


· Okay. In 1971 163 Brigade was withdrawn to Foxtrot Sector in the Punjab for the forthcoming Pakistan War, and it was not replaced because it was appraised there was no longer a China threat. In 1984, 102 (Independent) Brigade was raised at Thoise for the Siachin sector facing Pakistan, and 121 Brigade went under the newly raised 28 Division at Nimu. 102 Brigade was put under 3 Division.

· In 1999, on account of the Kargil War, 70 Brigade went to 8 Division, a formation brought in for the Kashmir Counter Insurgency from Eastern Command and stationed in Kashmir. 28 Division, minus 121 Brigade, went to Kupwara in the Kashmir Valley for the CI. So when the Kargil thing blew up, for operational reasons it was decided not to shift 28 Division back; instead 8 Division took over. Editor believes that 114 Brigade was also withdrawn for a time, leaving the China front denuded of regular troops. Anyway, 114 Brigade came back, and now, 14 years after leaving Demchok, 70 Brigade has come up. So you can see how seriously India was taking Chinese incursions. I.e., not at all seriously.

· To show how urgently India reacted to the threats in the decade 2001-2010, after opening DBO airfield not a single An-32 flight took place. Sub Sector North continued to be protected by outposts of the Indo Tibet Border Police, a high-altitude mountain warfare force raised after 1962 for patrolling the China border with Ladakh, Himachal, and Utter Pradesh. After the 1962 War, a new locally recruited force was raised, the Ladakh Scouts. These used to operate in companies, but after their steller performance in 1999 Kargil, they were given the status of a regular regiment and have, Editor thinks, six battalions. Sub Sector North is protected by 5 Ladakh Scouts, but till the other day this was not forward deployed. The rest of 22 Sector consists, as far as we know, by an infantry battalion, a Ladakh Scouts battalion, and a heavy mortar battery (12 x 120mm mortars), now for some peculiar reason called a heavy mortar regiment.

· After the Operation Trident fuss in 1986-87, India stationed a tank regiment and a mechanized battalion at Leh, under 3 Division; these became part of Corps troops when XIV Corps (Leh) was raised after the Kargil War. After the 2000s Chinese intrusions, India decided to sanction an armored brigade for Ladakh, which is now being raised, slowly. A T-90 tank regiment has gone to Leh and presumably it, plus the mechanized battalion, will form the nucleus of the new independent armored brigade, which will be under HQ XIV Corps as far as we know. India also okayed the raising of an infantry independent brigade group for the middle part of the Ladakh LAC with China. Something is happening, but we don’t know what since Mandeep is unavailable. Our assumption is that this will be based around Changchemo.


India is probably slowly building up to a new division HQ for North Ladakh, leaving 3 Division for South Ladakh. With these new raisings you cannot have a single division HQ controlling the entire 440-km or so Ladakh frontier. Is a third brigade being provided to bring 3 Division to strength? Don’t know – Mandeep will know, but he may not be free to speak, as the information is not released to the public. Sub Sector North also needs to become a separate sector, and the rest of 22 Sector put under a new brigade HQ with a third battalion added. Then 102 Brigade, DBO subsector, the new brigade in lieu of 22 Sector, and the new independent brigade could become part of a new division. But what the Indian Army needs and the bureaucrats agree to are two different things.


Last edited by rohitvats on 06 May 2013 10:03, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 May 2013 10:03 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 6116
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
From Orbat.Com - Part 2

Quote:
· Last Friday we detailed Indian deployments in Ladakh, current and planned. On China’s side the situation is quite simple. The Lanzhou Military Region has two army corps, one of which has been reduced to three independent brigades. The Xinjiang Military District has an unusually large number of independent formations, giving the MR 1 armored, 3 motorized or mechanized, and 1 infantry division, plus seven infantry, mechanized or motorized, and armored brigades.

· There is no particular reason why today these seven division equivalents cannot be deployed against India in Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. Personally, we have doubts about the efficiency of these troops, who have spent decades in (relatively) comfortable garrisons, have no experience in mountain warfare, and except a few senior generals have never heard a shot fired in battle. But none of this matters, because China does not intend to fight India in the high mountains as in 1962.

· Primarily it counts on Indian political cowardice to forestall any aggressive action on India’s part. But should that fail, the Chinese plan to let India comes down from their mountains to the plains of the plateau, and crush them there using light and medium armor. Not a bad strategy given they lose very little if they lose their high altitude outposts, because their mountain positions are shallow.

· To reiterate, in Ladakh we had postulated that soon there will be the equivalent of two infantry divisions and an armored brigade. It may appear on the surface of it that India is outnumbered three-to-one and in a very bad situation. At least the political types and Ministry of External Affairs, who are always holding out olive branches to the Chinese, would like Indians to believe that. Impressing on the nation its weakness reduces domestic pressure to take a hard line, and lets people believe “well, we have no choice but to compromise”. Naturally, Indians who cannot remember what happened yesterday and have zero interest in tomorrow, don’t ask why after 50-years and after the creation of the world’s largest mountain warfare force this should be so. No one who operates in a western frame of logic can explain anything India and Indians do.

· In reality there is no 3-1 superiority for China because if we are talking of the Xinjiang theater, India can, without difficulty, reinforce Ladakh-Himachal-Uttarkhand with additional divisions to quickly bring itself up to parity in the theatre.

· To problem is, what then? China is not about to launch a full-scale attack on India. The Chinese are arrogant and run their mouths like sewing machines, but they are not fools. They will get nowhere with an attack because their troops will have to dismount and slog it out in the mountains, where they will be at tremendous disadvantage. India is not about to attack China because of the lack of political will.

· But, readers will object, aren’t you forgetting the highly unfavorable Indian logistical situation. So we can push additional divisions into the Ladakh-Himachal-Uttarakhand sectors, but how are we going to support an offensive? The days are gone when an Indian mountain division needed just 200-tons of supplies a day. Back in those days a Chinese division got by with 50 or less because their divisions had little artillery (in the mountains) and few vehicles. Ah yes, simpler times – Editor gets quite nostalgic. Now the division artillery alone would need 200-tons/day in the attack. Moreover, how is India going to get artillery and vehicles to the mountain passes and across down to the Tibet plateau when roads are lacking?

· And what about an even greater problem: India has almost no east-west interconnectivity because of the mountains. Every sector has deployments like the open fingers of a hand, each finger proceeding up a steep, narrow valley, but the fingers cannot switch forces between them. For the Chinese that is no problem because they are on the plateau and have an excellent east-west main trunk road, plus other roads.


Well, we are not saying that this is not a problem. But where there is a will there is a way. India can still mount major offensives in the northwest and northeast. It would, however, have to carefully plan and carefully prepare. Since there is no will, there is no way. If India has done little in fifty years to prepare, what is the chance it will mend its bad ways and prepare for an all-out war in a year? Zero. But it can be done should in some alternative universe India decide to move. This we will discuss tomorrow.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 May 2013 10:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30
Posts: 7369
Quid pro quo behind India-China de-escalation?
Quote:
Rajat Pandit, TNN | May 5, 2013, 11.02 PM IST

NEW DELHI: It seems there was some sort of "a quid pro quo" behind the mutual withdrawal of Indian and Chinese troops from the 16,300-feet face-off site in the Depsang Bulge area of northern Ladakh on Sunday evening.


With India furiously working the diplomatic channels ahead of foreign minister Salman Khurshid's visit to Beijing on May 9, in preparation for Chinese premier Li Keqiang's trip to India on May 20, two back-to-back flag meetings were held between local commanders at Spanggur Gap area between Daulat Beg Oldi and Chushul sectors on Saturday and Sunday afternoons.


By 7.30pm on Sunday, the two forces - with 30 to 40 troops each - had begun to withdraw from the 20-day-old standoff site along the Raki Nala, which India perceives to be 19-km inside Indian territory, after a handshake between the two local commanders at the fifth flag meeting held earlier in the day.

Though there was no immediate official word on what were the exact terms of disengagement but sources said "there was some give-and-take" to resolve the face-off. "There had to be some face-saver for the Chinese," said a source. ( and none for India since we dont have face anyway)

China, since the very beginning and through the first three flag meetings on April 18, 23 and 30, had remained adamant that India should dismantle its forward observation post at Chumar in eastern Ladakh since it overlooks Chinese highways and can detect any troop movement there.

India, in turn, was demanding that the over 32 Chinese troops, who had pitched tents at the face-off site and were getting their supplies through regular vehicular support, should return to their pre-April 15 positions. India was worried about the deep Chinese intrusion in the Depsang Bulge area, a table-top plateau, since it threatened to cut its access to around 750 sqkm area in the region.

The face-off site was just about 40-km south of the strategic Karakoram Pass, which is at the tri-junction of China-Pakistan-India borders, and overlooks the Siachen Glacier-Saltoro Ridge to the west and the Indian observation post in the Chumar sector to the east. ( If you sell off Siachen-Saltoro Ridge to Pakistan the necessity to have Chumar post will cease to exist . Some of us inlcuding most in UPeeA have advocated it as track-II diplomacy. The mistake of such an idea should be obvious to us though. Karakorum pass is important for us as it would need to be cut off during war.)

Though already angry with India's re-activation of advanced landing grounds at Daulat Beg Oldi, Fukche and Nyoma and building of other infrastructure along the LAC over the last four-five years, China had made the dismantling of the Chumar post as a pre-condition for de-escalation.

The Chinese, in fact, had earlier even tried to "immobilize" the surveillance cameras positioned at the Chumar post by cutting wires there. In June last year, Indian troops had intercepted two Chinese personnel on mules across the Chumar post. Though they were subsequently let off, with language being a barrier, China got hugely irritated about the incident. Holding that the two Chinese were from its revenue department, Beijing since then has been pressing hard for the Chumar post to be dismantled.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 May 2013 18:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11356
Location: India
One important reason why China decided to withdraw,with "no loss of face" supposedly,but whatever compromise may exist in the fine print,is the situ in the Pacific with Japan.True,they have tucked their tails between their legs and departed! It is a fine moral victory for India,which for once stood firm.The massive pressure upon the GOI/UPA both from the Opposition and from some of its own allies,not to mention the military,probably shook the Chinese mandarins who had not expected such a response from India.I'm also sure that the consequences of not withdrawing,diplomatic,economic and military,of which we on BR have done our bit in elaborating upon,playing our part in the propaganda war,made them retreat...but for the moment.If we are weak,they will return again another time.

The news today that 3 PLAN warships have intruded into Japanese territorial waters indicate that the PRC takes the situ in the Pacific far more seriously than in Tibet/Ladakh.The Chinese would've also remembered the old adage ,not to fight a war on two fronts simultaneously. At the moment,it is sabre rattling "tous azimuth",raising the concerns of nations all across Asia and beyond.What must not happen now is for Salman-the-Cursed to fly to Beijing,kowtow with his Chinese counterparts and snatch defeat across the table by giving away the victory on the ground!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 May 2013 18:54 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Aug 2012 09:12
Posts: 765
Let us not forget that we blinked first - MMS called up Xi ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 May 2013 21:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51
Posts: 993
Location: satta ke galiyare
^They had intruded into our territory not the other way round. So its logical that MMS calls up Xi. No? To me this was a classic case of "Pen is mightier than sword".
Maybe Chini wanted the next Agni V test to be stalled for sometime. No points for guessing their reaction when we launched the first one. :lol:


Last edited by SagarAg on 06 May 2013 21:53, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 May 2013 21:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Posts: 1131
Location: India
Somehow it looks like chinese have made a wrong move
Quote:
After Chinese pullout, India to increase Army presence along LAC
After the pullout by Chinese troops from Daulat beg Oldi area of Ladakh, infrastructure development programme along the line of actual control is expected to be stepped up besides beefing up of the presence of Army there.

Frenquency of patrolling along the LAC is also expected to be enhanced as per the new measures being contemplated by the government, sources said here on Monday.

The government is also planning to give final clearance to a Rs 84,000 crore Army proposal for raising the Mountain Strike Corps along the northeastern borders which will include deployment of IAF assets as per Army's plans, they said.


it also looks like unkil always gets benefited by all this drama in south china sea,senkaku islands or ladakh


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 May 2013 00:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11369
Location: Revive Sanskrit
Maharani and MadamRaja, seem to be treating dealing with the Chinese as a internal family affair. Although it is rather normal for governments to make deals and keep them under wraps, this one I thing needs some debate outside the family circles.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 May 2013 02:10 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 05 Jul 2012 20:15
Posts: 38
It has become a trend in all military and defense forums questioning who blinked first.
I believe war should be the last step, If there are ways to resolve through diplomatic channels, then do it. Please remember "The enemy in a war is war itself"
It is not the question of whether Xi blinked or MMS blinked first.

I think, India as a responsible power has taken the first step to resolve this issue.
we all know china is a bully nation, it does the same with Japan, Vietnam, or whomsoever in the south china sea. We all know the reason why china is doing this, it is just like NKo trying to divert people from unrest to patriotism.

I seriously believe that we not only see infiltrators across the border, we also see some war mongers infiltrating in our forums too, shouting for war or blaming the government of inaction. What I don't understand is why the thought they put into in writing the flamboyant columns be channelized to understand the world politics. Please view this subject as though being out of India and see the larger picture. what i mean to say is, People think out of the box and see the larger picture. Understand the capability of both nations, the implications of a standoff and war as a whole. What will happen to our economy. The whole world is crawling out of a recession. What will a standoff do to the world economy if and when two economic superpower clash.

If war is the only way, then America and Russia would have destroyed each other long back.

I think the war monger will understand only when one fine India escalates the situation and then it grows into a big confrontation like 62. But be aware, in 62 there were no nuclear weapons on both sides, but now both have and that fine day will arrive when china launches a nuke which falls on one such war monger infiltrated in our forum. he will shut, but will it end there?? no we will retaliate, the situation will grow to a nuclear holocaust and we all have to shut.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 May 2013 03:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10
Posts: 1591
Posting without comment: India to give up Chumar post for Chinese withdrawal?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 May 2013 03:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27
Posts: 389
For all the dhoti shivers out there, a point to note about this whole episode is that the Chinese are getting jittery about the Indian military build up along the LAC these past few years. An assertive India is a big headache for China. For all its posturing China, knows that it cant afford to open up to many fronts at the same time. Its okay to browbeat the small east Asian countries but India and Japan are a total different proposition especially with Big Uncle at Japans side.

Jingoism and warmongering among so called patriots is one thing. Ever govt will be blamed if it is seen as going soft on the "enemy". But what everyone should not forget is that we live in a nuclear neighborhood. No one in their right mind would like to spark off an incident that could lead to nuclear war.

Having said that, the Chinese only respect strength.There is a saying "talk peace but keep your powder dry ". We should continue to build up infrastructure and capability not only along the LAC but over every spectrum of the armed forces.

An incident such as this will only help give a push to pending decisions like clearance for the mountain strike corps. Might also hasten the decision to sign the Rafale deal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 May 2013 03:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 2605
Frankly I can't tell just what is driving most of the outrage expressed over the last two pages even after what appears by most accounts to be successful resolution of the issue for India.

1. With regard to the security of the LAC being disregarded by a treacherous government, FACT is the Chinese incursion was a response to the bolstering of Indian defenses all across the LAC.

2. On the issue of the lack of military response to the Chinese troops at DBO, FACT is while the handful of soldiers there might have been dislodged, Chinese capability to reinforce them is far far greater than that India's in the sector (primarily due to the terrain, other factors are secondary). Bottom-line, for the near future DBO is not defensible, regardless of who's having tea and biscuits in New Delhi.

3. The strategy of riposte carries the risk of escalation, and fearless chest thumping aside, FACT is China has the advantage of favourable terrain along most of the LAC and is ahead by decades as far infrastructure development is concerned. And while India is well on its way to establishing a credible military deterrent, we're not there yet. FM Manekshaw's greatest achievement in 1971 was prevailing on Mrs Gandhi to let him choose the time and manner of his offensive. Kneejerk reactions here wouldn't have served us either.

4. Finally, while I would not dismiss the possibility of backroom concessions out-of-hand, FACT still is that India has certain very potent geographic and political advantages over the PRC, knuckling down is not the only explanation for the Chinese withdrawal.

- 80% of China-bound crude passes through the Malacca Strait and while we certainly wouldn't interdict it in response to what was, so far, a minor incident on the LAC, the Chinese still be subtly nudged towards a more realistic analysis of their overall position.

- Secondly and just as importantly, while China is emerging as a superpower with the potential to rival the US, the result of hyphenating Japan-US-India-Australia-Singapore-Malaysia-Vietnam, is still massive conniptions in Beijing. So far India has refrained from participating in any overt alliance against China, but the mandarins may still quietly let the Chinese know that India's policy therewith is not set in stone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 May 2013 03:31 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 25 Oct 2010 19:31
Posts: 67
gauravsh wrote:
What are the 'modalities' as indicated by the news report. What were the Chinese aiming for all through this time and what did we ended giving up ?
Can't believe they withdraw without getting anything in return. Something is missing here :-?


Very good point. There is a lot missing here.

If you read Sun Tzu's Art of War it may explain some of their actions. Sun Tzu's quote "all war is a deception" and other sayings about confusing your enemy and causing conflict within the enemy seem to be very effective from this small experiment.

What has this done in India? All the war mongers will keep talking about China till they are blue in the face. And will overreact by spending much much more on defences in that area than is needed. The existing government will be blamed for making a deal whether one was made or not. So this little experiment will mean India will spend much much more in defence, trying to catch China. Will have a more polarized and bitter political campaign from all sides. Where the focus is on defence spending and posture, rather than economic growth and development, the true topic for discussion.

India for the first time in a very long time has some very powerful friends and some very deep pockets. Thats an excellent combination for us. We are getting buddy-buddy with the US, which is good. And we have close ties with Russia, also very good. We have the Afghans on our side, giving the Pakis a headache on a regular basis. Again, things are not as bad as some are making it out to be.

Again if India loses sight of what is really going on and what is really important, and goes for the bait the Chinese are dropping, we will be our own worst enemies.

Increasing capabilies on the eastern front should continue. Alliances with other friendly neighbors like Afghanistan, Nepal, Burma, Japan, Korea, Vietnam and Phillipines. We shouldn't get complacent or relaxed, but we shouldn't overreact or panick either.

And what this forum has shown most of all, logical and intelligent debate is needed over the future of India. War mongering, finger pointing, defeatist attitudes are a waste of time, IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 May 2013 18:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Posts: 1131
Location: India
Marten wrote:
How exactly is "Unkil" benefited in this case?

By weapons sales sir. though unkil is not the only beneficiary in this case but in case of japan, soko, it is .
The lack of coverage in western media on ladakh should be noted.

If we are going to spend 84000 cr, then we are going to put it in someone's pocket, isnt it?
Such incidents where not a single bullet is fired or the scale is very small is a melodrama caused to benefit parties on both sides.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 May 2013 22:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Posts: 604
Location: still settling...
it was stupidest move by china...it was exactly like moving back and forth in chess...if feeling threat to overall game...

in realistic situation they have exposed themselves and reduced their positioning...

Itll only help govt to bolster the defence in the region...

Secondly I still think it was very wrong time for china to do it...and chinese military is not in total control of civilians...

They ve exposed cracks in their armer without any of our doings..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 May 2013 00:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 2605
Samay wrote:
By weapons sales sir. though unkil is not the only beneficiary in this case but in case of japan, soko, it is .
The lack of coverage in western media on ladakh should be noted.


There's civil war in Syria now involving Israel, a major war buildup on the Korean peninsula, internal and cross-border war in Sudan/South-Sudan, escalating violence in the DRC, war in Northern Mali, US operations in the Maghreb and against the AQAP and more than a dozen lower grade conflicts across the world. And that's in addition to a worldwide recession and a tottering Europe. We shouldn't be surprised that the global media isn't all that interested in a few dozen Indian and Chinese soldiers pitching tents in the middle of nowhere and waving signs at each other.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 May 2013 01:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Posts: 1981
NYT was predicting resolution of this incursion one way or the other by withdrawal due to weather constraints.

Not sure what the Chinese wanted to accomplish with this incursion. MMS by now has reached the outer limits of appeasement of China Pakistan.

It will be difficult for Army to get control over ITBP with Chidambaram. Recall he wanted control of Assam Rifles under Home ministry some time ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 May 2013 01:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Posts: 571
Location: On a roller-coaster.
92-Pages, PDF.

ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS
Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2013
Prepared by: Office of the Secretary of Defense, United States of America


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 May 2013 02:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11369
Location: Revive Sanskrit
China incursion: Antony non-committal on India withdrawal from Chumar

Quote:
New Delhi: Defence minister AK Antony on Tuesday remained non-committal whether India had agreed to withdraw its troops from a key post in Chumar area in Ladkah as was being demanded by China.

“I will just say that the two sides have agreed to have status quo ante,” he said when asked if the Army has agreed to withdraw troops from bunkers built in Chumar area.

Reports on Tuesday suggested that though the government has asserted that no concessions were offered to the Chinese to end the face-off in east Ladakh, the Army seemed to have agreed to removal of bunkers built by it in Chumar close to the Line of Actual Control (LAC) to facilitate an agreement.

The reports said the 21-day eyeball-to-eyeball situation in Ladakh’s Depsang valley ended only after the Army agreed to demolish bunkers it had built in the region.

During the flag meetings on the issue during the stand-off between the two sides, the Chinese side had been demanding that India dismantle its bunkers in Chumar before talking about withdrawal of its troops from the Depsang valley.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 May 2013 04:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 1759
From Times Of India: China’s military might on an upswing, Pentagon says

From Times Of India: India destroyed bunkers in Chumar to resolve Ladakh row, Army officers confirm

From The Economic Times: India-China border row: No talks on scaling down of India’s infra at border


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6648 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147 ... 167  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group