Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 Jul 2017 03:25

Without taking large parts of the Chumbi valley itself, there is little hope of stopping this creep from their side as evident in the claims lines of google china maps. They have been relentless in their pursuit to create a corridor to the Bay of Bengal since the very beginning as far back as '62. Creation of Bangladesh out of East Pakistan just put a temporary stop to it as I had mentioned in another thread before. Question is can India take Chumbi valley as a whole from them, forget about liberating Tibet for now. Without this baby step everything else is daydreaming. They have no business being so close to the Bhutan and Sikkim wedge and within 20km of the chicken neck corridor of India.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 02 Jul 2017 06:48

so, if they lose access through PoK they want to pursue the Bangla axis? why the timing is now? even if we accept that it is going to be progressively difficult for them to engage India militarily

vsunder · Post by **vsunder** » 02 Jul 2017 06:48

It may not be out of order to remember Force 22. Force 22 was raised soon after the 1962 operations by the legendary Brig. and later Maj-Gen Sujan Singh Uban who had experience in such operations in the Long range desert operations in the western desert in ww2. Force 22 was raised in Chakrata, 100 km from Dehradun for penetration into Tibet, sabotage and other activities behind Chinese lines. Force 22 was in large part composed of Khampas(Tibetans from Kham who are known for their martial legacy) and was about 8000 strong. Training was also received from the CIA and many weapons also came from the CIA. The Khampas were naturally adapted to high altitude warfare. Uban was also involved in training the Mukti Bahini. Tibetan units of Force 22, SSF also participated in the Bangladesh Liberation war though this has never been officially acknowledged by GOI. IA itself was very lukewarm about raising Force 22, till there was an exercise in 1964 where Force 22 conclusively showed their superior strength in this exercise. This video may shed some light. The video was made on the 50th anniversary of the raising of Force 22.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bgakTZ2kYM&app=desktop

More to the liking of the Hindi challenged:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xucs_2Tgp7g

The Tibetans disobeyed orders and ^^^ carried out raids into Tibet without permission. After a few such un-authorized raids, Force 22 was barred from approaching LAC and had to stay at least 15km from it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jul 2017 07:04

but if we lock them in a 'must win' position for them, they will escalate to total war, which we will then lose.....

#### above is a perfect indication of Indian defeating themselves in their own mind before the fight has even started. We have been over this a few times in any border war our position is far superior in bringing in resources

And do you think the rulers in Peking want to risk a nuclear exchange or our subs disrupting their golden cow sea trade in this mythical all out war?

Get a grip and don't spread bs here as gospel take it as a severe warning .. unless one is prepared to fight for national interest the rest is just a matter of finding the right excuses for defeat like "oh we needed Nirbhays" or "foreign coaches" not what we expect to see on brf....more suitable for ndtv and IBNLive forums

Next time anyone propagates defeatist hand wringing mentality here there will be consequences

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 02 Jul 2017 07:19

SriJoy wrote: We are obviously not as backwards compared to China, but if we lock them in a 'must win' position for them, they will escalate to total war, which we will then lose.....

India-China dynamic at present is same as Pakistan-India dynamic. The larger economy has more to lose by going to war. China needs to provide apology and deescalate as India has no benefit to not take advantage of the situation China created.

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 02 Jul 2017 08:36

vera_k wrote:India-China dynamic at present is same as Pakistan-India dynamic. The larger economy has more to lose by going to war. China needs to provide apology and deescalate as India has no benefit to not take advantage of the situation China created.

Which makes it puzzling as to why would they even try something like this, and that too at a time when they are trying to launch OBOR. When Agni V was tested, to 5000km range, there were some strong statements from China govt., which some worthies on the forum interpreted as China finally understanding India's new capability and its implications for a nuclear exchange. So, it is not like India is up against a wall. And after the Sum Durong Chu escalation ('87?) (under Gen. Sundarji) where India escalated by airlifting a brigade, and China backed down. This probably set a precedent for how India tackles such situations.

All in all a little puzzling as to what they hope to achieve with this stunt, unless they are sure India will back down (which seems unlikely, after the lessons of Sumdurong Chu).

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Jul 2017 08:50

China hardens stand over border stand-off with India - Saibal Dasgupta, ToI

China has hardened its position over the border stand-off by releasing a map to support its claims over the disputed area in the trijunction between Bhutan, Sikkim and its Tibet region.

The map release is a contradiction of Beijing's call for "meaningful dialogue" as China has signaled its refusal to compromise on its territorial claims.

The map is meant to show that the Indian Army had "trespassed" its area by crossing the border at Doka La pass and entered the Doklam plateau. Both Bhutan and India believe Doklam is Bhutanese territory but China is contesting it. Chinese troops were building a road in the Doklam area when they faced resistance from Bhutanese and Indian troops.

Explaining China's claims, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said on Friday: "The line commences at Mount Gipmochi on the Bhutan frontier, and follows the above-mentioned water-parting to the point where it meets Nepal territory. It is without any doubt that the spot where the Indian border troops trespassed is on the Chinese side of the boundary."

India regards Chinese action of building a road in the disputed area as a violation of the territory of Bhutan, which is a close ally.

Iyersan · Post by **Iyersan** » 02 Jul 2017 08:57

The interesting part is china is not backing down. Get ready for a border war

Iyersan · Post by **Iyersan** » 02 Jul 2017 08:58

We need to have more updates on this topic

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Jul 2017 09:05

SSridhar wrote:
Amoghvarsha wrote:Do we actually have an agreement with Bhutan where their defense is our responsibility?Please link me to it.
I don't think that question can be answered. The answer can only be inferred. We do have a Friendship Treaty and that is based on the British-Bhutan Treaty.

One more update.
Why Bhutan is special to India - The Hindu

Under the 2007 India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty, the two sides have agreed to “cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests. Neither Government shall allow the use of its territory for activities harmful to the national security and interest of the other.”

Under the previous treaty, India was to “guide” Bhutan on foreign and defence policies. The language of the 2007 treaty is meant to respect the sensitivities of Bhutan regarding its sovereignty. But the reality is that the Indian military is virtually responsible for protecting Bhutan from the kind of external threat that the Chinese military poses.

The Eastern Army Command and the Eastern Air Command both have integrated protection of Bhutan into their role. The Indian Military Training Team (IMTRAT), headed by a Major General, plays a critical role in training Bhutanese security personnel.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 02 Jul 2017 09:09

My best guess is that China has been infected with the clapistani disease, H&D will need to be maintained, until they can safely downhill ski. Literally in summer, disputes will be resolved slowly, while they enjoy the scenery and have polk flied lice. India is showing the more mature response. One benefit of this infiltration is that it will remind the Bhutanese of the value of friendship with India. I hope the pigeon will use this incident to formalize a defense treaty with Bhutan, ideally even before the issue is resolved.

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 02 Jul 2017 09:10

^^^Bhutan was the first country Modi visited after becoming PM. Wonder what was discussed or what he had in mind.

williams · Post by **williams** » 02 Jul 2017 09:31

SriJoy wrote:
williams wrote:I still don't understand why do we need to provide a face saver when there is balant thuggish behaviour. After all Chinese never give us a face saver.
Because we need to give China a 'way out' or else lose an all-out escalation. Sort of like how Ethiopia gave Italy a 'face saver' a century ago after beating them. We are obviously not as backwards compared to China, but if we lock them in a 'must win' position for them, they will escalate to total war, which we will then lose.....

What is the objective of the so called all out war? If it is another "teach India a lesson" kind of escalation, we can given them a good bloody nose. Nuclear exchange will destroy both the countries and the Chinese know it. We should simply not give any face saver to a bully, period.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Jul 2017 12:14

India should destroy the road building equipment.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jul 2017 12:20

Yes we should use standoff missile to destroy the storage area of these civil eqpt to send a message clear and loud

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 02 Jul 2017 12:24

'Which we will then lose...' Come on! Take a break!

If nothing else take inspiration from Kidambis and Sindhus who have beaten the Chinese best at their own game.

All they do is drive vehicles across the flat dust pan of Tibet. Engage them in mountain warfare and they shall feel the air or lack of it. Dont want to point out but who ever says 'Which we will then lose' still has feet trembling at thought of '62.

Things have changed and you better change. In any case your views belong to the deepest deeps of defeatist mindset that does not belong to this country of today.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 02 Jul 2017 13:16

SriKumar wrote:Which makes it puzzling as to why would they even try something like this, and that too at a time when they are trying to launch OBOR.

If the Chinese economy was about to implode, the marginal cost for starting a war would be low. And it would help the CPC retain control for some more time. But in counterpoint, the Chinese economy reported faster growth last quarter than in quite some time.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jul 2017 13:34

for every region, there is a certain optimum amt of resources like artillery that one can push in and use because 1 artillery gun carries a train of 10 people around it, to feed and take care of it, and 50 more strung out on the logistical tail to bring it shells, charges and food for the men around it.
more the logistical tail, more vulnerable is it to strikes from the air and counter firing unless there is vietnam type jungle canopy and heavy rains to hide under.
so just because someone has 5000 arty guns does not mean they can magically bring all these guns to bear on a certain sector and sustain it in a fight. infact more than optimum number is just overhead.

the max ever sustained was in the push into berlin from the east, where the russians arrange for some 400 guns per 1km of the 10km or so frontages they chose for breakthroughs on the oder vistula front . ie a total of 4000 guns various calibers and katyusha rockets and even tank cannons pointed skywards were used. to achieve such a barrage was unusual in that they never planned to do it more than the initial 2 hrs after which they would disperse again into lower volume battles...and even for that 2 hrs the logistical buildup would have been over weeks stretching back to depots in the rear.

take food for instance. we have vast resources in the heartland to sustain a huge armed presence, while tibet probably imports food even for its native population, such is the climate and limited arable land. feeding and keeping a army of 500,000 up in the plateau for a year of "hot peace" sounds like a ruinous affair to me just in food and fuel apex alone .

nam · Post by **nam** » 02 Jul 2017 15:59

Also the fact that the Chinese will be firing artillery in to mountain ranges, which are effective only in direct mode or when the troops are in a valley. The reverse slope nullifies any artillery advantage.

Moreover in artillery duels, PLA will be fighting an army which has more than 5 decades of experience doing this in the Himalayas. And PLA has to do this from flat Tibetian plateau, where anti-battery radar can easily pinpoint locations!

The only effective way to target Indian troops in LAC would be to use airpower with LGBs.. for which PLAAF needs to clear the sky of IAF, flying from Tibet!

Good luck with that.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jul 2017 15:59

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06 ... um=twitter

peking tears up the HK treaty it signed and flushes it down toilet

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jul 2017 16:13

some background of Op Falcon to zemi thang
https://www.thequint.com/opinion/2017/0 ... y-surprise

those days no cellphones but if IA were ever to release their film footage of the deployment using Mi26 would be truly epic ...

nam · Post by **nam** » 02 Jul 2017 16:15

Singha wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06 ... um=twitter

peking tears up the HK treaty it signed and flushes it down toilet

At the same time keeps harping about British treaty of 1890 to claim Indian & Bhutanese territory !

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Jul 2017 16:28

My analysis of the latest China India stand-off in Bhutanese territory:

http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2017/07/do ... china.html

nam · Post by **nam** » 02 Jul 2017 16:43

Do we have any literature on what PLA units are deployed in this region? Like is there a artillery unit nearby?

Javee · Post by **Javee** » 02 Jul 2017 17:25

Came across an article on the Chinese infra built-up in the higher ranges of Himalayas (from a Kailash yatri)

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/travelogu ... ash-3.html

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Jul 2017 17:49

Has China miscalculated on the border? Or, is this a deliberate provocation? - Rajesh Rajagopalan, Economic Times

As with much of China’s foreign policy, it is difficult to figure out whether China’s actions at the China-Bhutan-India border trijunction is an example of China misperceiving how far it can push without creating a problem or deliberately intending to create a crisis with India as a way of sending a message. Either way, this raises some important challenges that New Delhi has to consider.

One important reason to consider the possibility that this was caused by China’s misperception of how far it could push is the area where this incident is taking place. Though details about the incident and its exact location are still somewhat unclear, there seems to be agreement on all sides that the area in question — Doklam — is the one disputed between China and Bhutan, not China and India, though it does have implications for the Sino-Indian border as well as for Indian security in the region. This might suggest that China did not consider the possibility of India coming to Bhutan’s aid.

Some reports suggest that Chinese troops had intruded into this area before and that it pushed back Bhutanese soldiers when they objected. China seems to have been trying to build a more permanent road through this area when India intervened. Thus, it is possible that the Chinese forces expected only the Bhutanese forces to respond, whom they were confident of overpowering.

Such a hypothesis sits well with China’s recent behaviour in other areas such as the South China Sea. There, China is trying to assert control over the entire area by building several artificial islands, in addition to those it already controls. China’s approach appears to be to place its military forces in unoccupied areas, assert control and dare anyone who wants to challenge it to shoot first. This, of course, is similar to what it did along the disputed Sino-Indian border in the period leading up to the 1962 Sino-Indian War. Though there have been some exceptions, in most cases, China has mastered the art of using its military forces rather than military force to take over territory.

China assumes, correctly, that once it has possession of the territory it wants, its overwhelming strength can deter smaller neighbours from militarily challenging it. This leaves diplomacy, international opinion, or international law as the only recourse which, as the Philippines discovered last year, isn’t of much help.

Such an approach also carries risks. In this case, it leaves India with no choice but to respond, even though such a response carries with it obvious risks of escalation. This is not new either: China has shown such shortsightedness repeatedly. Its aggressive behaviour in the South China Sea is leading to the very outcome that it was trying to prevent: driving its neighbours into tightening their security relationships with the US, and driving the US to shift from viewing Beijing as a global partner to a strategic competitor and even a threat.

In South Asia, China’s nuclear weapons technological assistance to Pakistan arguably hastened Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme and, in turn, India’s decision to restart its own nuclear weapons programme, to China’s detriment.

No Middle Ground

However, if this was a deliberate attempt by China to send a message to India, it raises other challenges for New Delhi. First, it may indicate an effort to split Bhutan and India. Though Bhutan has also sent a demarche to China, Beijing may have calculated that Bhutan would be unhappy about getting in the middle of a Sino-Indian squabble, driving Bhutan to a more neutral position, away from India and closer to China.

This gives China an opportunity to offer concessions to Bhutan on the condition that Bhutan rescind its traditional security and political relationship with India. If this happens, it will create a very delicate diplomatic problem for New Delhi. But this will be in keeping with China’s diplomatic drive in the region to convince India’s neighbours to balance against India with China’s help. This will require astute Indian diplomatic response because there is a natural and understandable tendency for smaller states to counter a more powerful neighbour by seeking help from a distant power.

Second, it might also be an effort by China to stop the growing strategic entente between India and the US, given that this happened around the same time as Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s surprisingly successful Washington visit. If so, it is another example of China’s strategic ineptitude because this will only drive India closer towards the US by demonstrating seriousness of the China threat.

Finally, China’s action might be a warning of something more serious coming down the pike, especially since it was China that complained first, taking the role of the victim. The idea that China might be deliberately planning a war appears implausible on the surface but it cannot entirely be ruled out either. In India, there is a general tendency to assume that states do not calculatingly start wars because India has rarely done so.

Despite claiming territory that both Pakistan and China occupy, New Delhi has never attempted a military effort to retake it, with the partial exception of Siachen. Nevertheless, Indian decision makers will have to consider this possibility and India’s defence preparedness if this should be the case. India in 2017 may not be the India of 1962 but New Delhi should remember that overconfidence was part of the problem then.

Irrespective of whether this was deliberate or a miscalculation, in the larger political context, China is leaving India with little strategic choice. New Delhi is realising slowly that, whether at the NSG or on the border, when China pushes, there is no middle ground.

The writer is professor of international politics, JNU, Delhi

Iyersan · Post by **Iyersan** » 02 Jul 2017 18:27

http://toi.in/qBu0Ra
Things just went downhill a bit more

The actual headline is "Eye on China, India pushes more troops in Doka La in longest impasse since 1962"

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 02 Jul 2017 19:22

vera_k wrote:
SriKumar wrote:Which makes it puzzling as to why would they even try something like this, and that too at a time when they are trying to launch OBOR.
If the Chinese economy was about to implode, the marginal cost for starting a war would be low. And it would help the CPC retain control for some more time. But in counterpoint, the Chinese economy reported faster growth last quarter than in quite some time.

Maybe this is the only plausible explanation....that things are much worse with the economy and OBOR than what is known outside. IF true, OBOR might be close to collapse. And the Bhutan construction activity might be a stick to force India into OBOR (the expectation being that India will blink and acquiese). And if this is the plan, in back-channel negotiations they might dangle a 'carrot of de-escalation' if India takes part in OBOR- maybe. The other possibility is that they did not expect India to 'interfere' in construction in a disputed area with Bhutan, and were caught in a surprise themselves. IMHO, the only way it makes sense from a Chinese standpoint is if they are sure that India will acquiese, or if they are at the edge of an economic cliff. I cannot think of any other possibility.

I do think that India would have gamed this situation ages ago. China has been doing this more and more often since Modi came to power (starting with the standoff in Ladakh area during XI Jinpeng's first visit to India under Modi).

Added later:
From Rajagopalan's article posted above by SSridhar- I agree one possible goal of this gambit might be to engineer a split of Bhutan from India (but the Bhutanese very well know what happened to their Tibetian friends after Han China went into Lhasa). I disagree with his view that Indians in general do not expect China to deliberately start a war. Maybe that's true among his JNU campus comrades, but not outside that.

Sridhar K · Post by **Sridhar K** » 02 Jul 2017 19:25

Javee wrote:Came across an article on the Chinese infra built-up in the higher ranges of Himalayas (from a Kailash yatri)

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/travelogu ... ash-3.html

Javee saar infra has improved a lot now and there is a complete motorable road all the way. Land cruisers are replaced by volvo clones

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 02 Jul 2017 20:18

Iyersan wrote:http://toi.in/qBu0Ra
Things just went downhill a bit more

Better to post the full url as well as the headline. Helps others decide if they want to follow up on the link.

williams · Post by **williams** » 02 Jul 2017 21:48

SSridhar wrote:The idea that China might be deliberately planning a war appears implausible on the surface but it cannot entirely be ruled out either. In India, there is a general tendency to assume that states do not calculatingly start wars because India has rarely done so.

These kind of childish Chinese games are known to Indian establishment for eons. After 1962 debacle, Chinese smoke and mirror strategies and counter responses are gamed to death right when our officers do their training in DSSC and FSI. What was missing is strong leader like Modi and NSA like Doval at the highest levels to enable robust counter responses. Today we have that and hence the confident silence on our side. Only missing factor is if the Chinese miscalculate Indian resolve and indulge in some adventurism. We should be able to win a land war and stalemate any strategic overtures from the Chinese. That will of course hurt both the countries' economy, but we didn't make that choice.

yogi · Post by **yogi** » 02 Jul 2017 22:40

What will it take to capture the entire stretch of G219, until outskirts of Lhasa, and announce the area below as Free Tibet? This would:
1: Bring back Lake Mansarovar in our domain.
2: Cut off Nepal from China.
3: Take the fight to enemy territory.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 02 Jul 2017 23:09

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/sikki ... 170702.htm
India pushes more troops in Doka La in longest impasse with China since 1962
India brought in more troops after the destruction of two of its bunkers and "aggressive tactics" adopted by the Chinese People's Liberation Army.
India has pushed in more troops in a "non-combative mode" to strengthen its position in an area near Sikkim, where its soldiers have been locked in a standoff with Chinese troops for almost a month now in what has been the longest such impasse between the two armies since 1962.
India brought in more troops after the destruction of two of its bunkers and "aggressive tactics" adopted by the Chinese People's Liberation Army, sources said. In a "non-combative mode", the nozzle of a gun is placed downwards.
Giving details for the first time about the events that preceded the face off between the two armies, the sources said the PLA on June 1 asked the Indian Army to remove the two bunkers set up in 2012 at Lalten in Doka La, which falls in the vicinity of Chumbi Valley at the corner of India-Bhutan-Tibet tri-junction. The Indian Army, which had been patrolling this area for many years, decided in 2012 that two bunkers would be positioned there as a backup option, besides providing security to the Bhutan-China border.
The Indian Army forward positions informed Sukna-based 33 Corps Headquarter in North Bengal about the Chinese warnings on the bunkers, the sources said. However, during the night of June 6, two Chinese bulldozers destroyed the bunkers, claiming that the area belonged to China and that India or Bhutan had no right over it, the sources said. Indian troops on the ground prevented the Chinese men and machines from doing any further damage or transgressing into the area, they said. Additional forces from nearby brigade headquarters, located 20 km from the face off point, were moved in on June 8 during which a scuffle led to soldiers on both sides suffering minor injuries. PLA troops were rushed in from its 141 division located in the area, prompting the Indian Army to also strengthen its position. This is the longest standoff between the two armies since 1962. The last one, which carried on for 21 days, occurred at Daulat Beg Oldie in the Ladakh division of Jammu and Kashmir in 2013, when Chinese troops entered 30 km into Indian territory till the Depsang Plains and claimed it to be a part of its Xinjiang province.
........

Gautam

IndraD · Post by **IndraD** » 02 Jul 2017 23:33

Current stand off between India China is serious one..
Cheena wants to occupy all key positions from Tibet to Bhutan, encircle India and jeopardise India's security.
Also wants to help install anti India regime in BD, Nepal etc .
Wants to wean Bhutan away from India as well.
https://swarajyamag.com/world/border-st ... ter-intent

Amoghvarsha · Post by **Amoghvarsha** » 03 Jul 2017 01:02

SSridhar wrote:
SSridhar wrote: I don't think that question can be answered. The answer can only be inferred. We do have a Friendship Treaty and that is based on the British-Bhutan Treaty.
One more update.
Why Bhutan is special to India - The Hindu
Under the 2007 India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty, the two sides have agreed to “cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests. Neither Government shall allow the use of its territory for activities harmful to the national security and interest of the other.”

Under the previous treaty, India was to “guide” Bhutan on foreign and defence policies. The language of the 2007 treaty is meant to respect the sensitivities of Bhutan regarding its sovereignty. But the reality is that the Indian military is virtually responsible for protecting Bhutan from the kind of external threat that the Chinese military poses.

The Eastern Army Command and the Eastern Air Command both have integrated protection of Bhutan into their role. The Indian Military Training Team (IMTRAT), headed by a Major General, plays a critical role in training Bhutanese security personnel.

While all these are fine.Bhutan is not our protectorate and hence the Chinese are blaming India for interfering in a third country. A mutual defense assistance treaty should have been long signed and considering what China is doing,Bhutan may be coerced into signing one.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 Jul 2017 01:25

Posting a part of my analysis on the present Sino-Indian stand-off:
http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2017/07/do ... china.html

Please refer to these maps to understand the write-up:

Doklam Plateau outline as claimed by China and acknowledged by Bhutan. Position of various mountain passes and location of India (Sikkim), Bhutan and Chumbi Valley.

The alignment of disputed area is described as - from Gymochen to Batang La to Merug La to Senche La and then along the ridge from Senche La to Amo Chu river. From Gymochen along the ridge to Amo Chu river.

However, this is only part of the Chinese claim in the area. Actual Chinese claim is much-much larger and places a lot of territory in western Bhutan adjoining Chumbi Valley (contiguous to Doklam Plateau) under Chinese claims.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4ZSik ... sp=sharing

Existing road network in the region.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4ZSik ... sp=sharing

Road leads up from the Chumbi Valley to Senche La, crosses over to Bhutanese side, runs parallel to the Merug La-Senche La ridge line and then crosses back into Chumbi Valley at Merug La. A part of this road/track from Senche La also comes towards Doka La. It seems that Chinese have extended tracks from the Merug La-Sinche La ridge line onto the Doklam Plateau. And over the years, have slowly crept forward claiming and controlling larger part of the plateau.

What seems to be happening is that Chinese are trying to further expand their hold on the plateau. From the available news, it seems that Chinese were trying to create concrete roads in the region. The maps already show tracks which came about as Chinese saw no objection from RGOB. And in typical Chinese fashion, they’ll now claim existence of these tracks as proof of ownership – apart from historical claims.

Any further advance in this area poses security threat to India. Working in tandem with RBA, Indian Army seems to have stopped this construction activity within Doklam Plateau. This partly explains the apoplectic response from the Chinese – Indian Army is operating on Bhutanese territory and working in tandem with RBA to prevent further Chinese construction activity. Hence, the repeated references to this area having nothing to do with Sikkim-Tibet border and tri-junction.

Indian troops have come from Doka La area. They're well placed to counter any PLA movement on the plateau. In fact, if push comes to shove, IA can occupy the whole of plateau and enforce the boundary line - which should rest on the Batang La-Merug La-Senche La ridge line.

Chinese road from Chumbi Valley leading to Senche La rises through steep gradient and many-many loops. Same is the case with other road leading towards Chumbi Valley from Merug La. This road runs in semi-circular fashion below the adjoining ridge-line towards west and goes down through relatively lesser gradient.

In comparison, Indian troops across/on Doka La are sitting on a plateau which is the westward continuation of the Doklam Plateau. Further west is a north-south valley and we don't have much depth in the. Also, the Indian road network/communication axis runs north from Doka La and then curves north-west. For us, Doka La is at the end of this communication axis.

If the Chinese manage to control Doklam Plateau, they can make our life miserable here. And literally push India off it.

Apart from the Siliguri Corridor angle, this explains why India is reacting the way it has.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jul 2017 03:54

A short sharp defeat of China will lead to regime collapse as in Tsarist Russia.

The economy is in doldrums and and China is losing all its goodwill with India's recalcitrant neighbors.

But I would rather they see reason and not make themselves open to EJ crusade from US.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 03 Jul 2017 03:56

ramana wrote:A short sharp defeat of China will lead to regime collapse as in Tsarist Russia.

The economy is in doldrums and and China is losing all its goodwill with India's recalcitrant neighbors.

But I would rather they see reason and not make themselves open to EJ crusade from US.

That's why I have been saying Buddhism is a soft power we have not used against them.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 Jul 2017 07:13

Amoghvarsha wrote:While all these are fine.Bhutan is not our protectorate and hence the Chinese are blaming India for interfering in a third country. A mutual defense assistance treaty should have been long signed and considering what China is doing,Bhutan may be coerced into signing one.

We have to accept that we have a poor record of maintaining our 'sphere of influence' in our neighborhood, whether it is Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Maldives. Even with Bhutan, it has not always been smooth. Coercion is therefore ruled out. Besides, we don't know what secret clause is there in the already existing agreement. The British-Bhutan agreement had explicit clause about security but that was early twentieth century when Britain was very powerful and China very weak. Bhutan has always been worried about China and it might also fear that an explicit security arrangement with India might anger China even more.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 Jul 2017 08:01

Rohitvats, brilliant work. Clears the confusion a lot.

You have PM.