Latest Chinese boast: should we shiver or die laughing?

[ranjan.rao]

Shiv sir, I get your point. But the thing is clan of brf is small, especially when mods dont approve new requests and it will remain small. Few people will be interested in the level of details you are talking, forget about the effort you're putting into it. For a narrative to change, it has to go not JUST to the level of elites but also to the level of masses. I had a very long discussion on similar lines with an NRI who was BSing about how china can steam roll India without the slightest idea on capability of either of the nations. The fact we're not a propaganda nation doesnt help this cause either.

It is for this cause your videos play a significant role. With all due respect to you and your tremendous efforts, it is high time that some indian military person does this video. His "marketability" to the masses will be more. For example, Maj Gaurav Arya has hardly been saying anything new beyond what is discussed here. Yet, he's a bigger sensation than even timesnow Maroof Raza, who brings fabulous points. Again, the idea is not to enter in a meaningless debate. The idea is start and start somewhere to drive the message that while we need to "respect the enemy" it is not that they will have a walk in park and will be in delhi in 10 hours with a round trip ticket.
Once again, thanks for your efforts.

[shiv]

there MAY however be some political compulsions that go against pure military strategy - like for media optics and morale India simply cannot afford to lose tawang or amritsar at any cost for any reason though I believe tawang is very hard to defend and the area round Se La pass further behind is more suitable.

In fact politicians and the media can do serious damage to a military campaign in this regard. I think it was Nehru that said "not an inch of territory" will be given away. These strong words resonate with people even if they think Nehru was a fool - and in fact this is exactly what happened in the Namka Chu area. The Indian post at Namka Chu which was set up in a narrow valley was indefensible - it was in the wrong place in the first instance due to a map error - with Chinese troops dominating the heights on the Thagla ridge above. Many in the army on the ground knew that and asked that the post be withdrawn in favour of putting up stronger defences in rear areas around Tawang. These upright men were ignored and replaced and Kaul came in and asked them to hold the post at any cost - telling the men some shit about "positional warfare".

This is why terrain and geography are so important. It is OK to retreat to more defensible ground, draw the enemy in, make his logistics lines longer and slaughter him at leisure. It is like a bowler who tempts the batsman to score in a particular way and then having him caught on the third ball after 2 fours. We the public MUST understand these things and not get caught up with the rhetoric of 'not an inch" will be ceded.

[shiv]

But the thing is clan of brf is small, especially when mods dont approve new requests and it will remain small. Few people will be interested in the level of details you are talking, forget about the effort you're putting into it. For a narrative to change, it has to go not JUST to the level of elites but also to the level of masses.

I understand your concerns but I ask for patience. I think ramana is one person (among a few others) who will know how some things eventually explode into pubic consciousness after initial discussions on boards such as this. I see it as my duty to communicate what I feel must be said to the few who will see it. Typically any idea if good will get picked up and suddenly similar or better stuff will start appearing on other sites, blogs and finally the mainstream media. But it takes time. I would say 5 years.

[Singha]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati ... rection_11

Another good example of rah rah bungling based on top notch gear and 1 idf==10 hezbollah theory. A place called wadi hujeir stands out among bungling all fronts by tfta idf generals. Do read it all.

Quite a few videos on youtube . Hezbollah claimed a single soldier named ali saleh ran from prepared position to position firing kornets

One brigadier resigned for cowardice. Rest all had egg on face. Per propagandu merkava is great https://youtu.be/2L8OTynmklw but it's weak point of engine in front was identified and hit with precision...Once the engine is killed it's useless and due to weight dragging it back is also hard.

[shiv]

Chinese infrastructure in Tibet opposite the Tawang Area of Arunachal Pradesh
https://youtu.be/azQlfT9Iv4s

[ShauryaT]

In fact politicians and the media can do serious damage to a military campaign in this regard. I think it was Nehru that said "not an inch of territory" will be given away.

Small nitpick. It was not Nehru with those words there were by LB Shastri, to which COAS Chaudahri quickly reminding him in private that no such thing can be guaranteed in the thick of war.

[ranjan.rao]

Nehru was "evict the chinese" to which JP Dalvi was taunted with Chinese saying him that "Even Americans couldn't evict us from Korea"

[UlanBatori]

Sorry I have not been following this thread. Back to the original issue: Could someone pls start correcting the names on those maps?

[shiv]

In fact politicians and the media can do serious damage to a military campaign in this regard. I think it was Nehru that said "not an inch of territory" will be given away.

Small nitpick. It was not Nehru with those words there were by LB Shastri, to which COAS Chaudahri quickly reminding him in private that no such thing can be guaranteed in the thick of war.

Thanks for that bit of info. Nevertheless Nehru demanded "eviction" of the Chinese from a place where eviction was not possible in the time frame provided, and Krishnamenon simply fired/replaced officers who pointed this out.

As an aside It seems to me that the political leadership of any country can view their armed forces either as a powerful thinking ally necessary for nation-building and protection, or as a bunch of armed goons who do some dirty work while the real ruling is done by the politicians.

Britain, Germany and the USA always treated their armed forces in the former fashion - while the Lutyens crowd right down from Nehru's time seem to have treated the armed forces as a force of unthinking goons to do some dirty work while the real "clever statesmanship" came from the crisp white ironed shalwar-kameez/shuited-booted crowd. The armed forces have not been treated as a thinking ally but as a threat if they are more than a bunch of underequipped goons. When the Shekhar Guptas of this world see tanks in Delhi and think there is a coup it is reflective of this mindset.

[nam]

Wonderful details on the PLA camps around Tawang.

Have a question though. Why does the Chinese want Tawang? Does it allow them easier access to Tibet through east? I find it interesting that they insist on having Tawang in exchange for areas in Akasi Chin.

Also is their "space" to host a motorised division? on the heights around Tawang?

Regarding the heights over Tawang, thanks to their poodle we have learnt quite a few things in Kargil. Our artillery can engage these heights, supported by FOO in neighbouring mountains. Our artillery can be deployed on reverse slopes and with rarefied environment, at some distance. PLA counter batteries will have tough time engages our artillery in the mountains. I guess this is reason we are going for ULH to able to deploy on reverse slopes.

I take their will be a artillery/rocket barrage on Tawang, before they move in. Once they reach the "valley", we should return the favour.

Fundamentally Tawang is a trap for armies.

[shiv]

Have a question though. Why does the Chinese want Tawang? Does it allow them easier access to Tibet through east? I find it interesting that they insist on having Tawang in exchange for areas in Akasi Chin.

Good question. China simply wants the entire foothills of the Himalayas. Tawang is just the thin end of the wedge. The Himalayas come down to about 2500 meter heights in Northern parts of Arunachal Pradesh, and then the land slopes gently down to about 600 meters above mean sea level in Assam. Although the Chinese make a big deal about it - both Tibet and Xinjiang are hostile terrain - not just the people. But Northern parts of Tibet are more unlivable than Southern parts of Tibet where most of the population resides. There are a few areas in Chinese occupied territory just north of eastern Aru. P and Burma that are green and subtropical like Aru. P.

By occupying Aru. P China will gain at least 10% more of fertile arable land which is well watered. Although reaching Aru P is not easy because of the mountains north of Burma - once they are past that travel through southern Arunachal to southern Tibet will be easier than the current northern route which is worse than travelling to Siberia. Trade routes to other nations open up through warm areas that do not get snowed in in winter. At least Siberia has oxygen. They can build airports at heights of less than 1 km altitude which they can never do anywhere in Tibet. It so happens that India occupies a little bit more of the heights in the Tawang area than they are comfortable with and the whole of their Souther Tibet happiness can be phucked by India.

But once they come to Arunachal - they will look at Assam and say "hey how about that area - even better for us"

Need to keep them away using the tip of a long spear.

[rohitvats]

^^^There is a religious angle to the Tawang fixation.

The monastery in Tawang belong the 'Yellow hat' sect of Tibetan Buddhism, the same sect to which Dalai Lama belongs. The 6th Dalai Lama (current Dalai Lama is 14th in series) was born at a place close to Tawang. The current Dalai Lama has also said that next incarnation could be born outside of Tibet. Given the historic linkage of Tawang with Yellow Hat sect and previous instance of 6th DL being born here, the Chinese fear that next DL could be from this region.

[shiv]

Before the NamkaChu massacre
https://twitter.com/bennedose/status/848160089408196614

"Kaul, who had just started his morning shave, was staring open-mouthed across the river towards the flashes of mortar fire and the exploding bombs. ‘Oh my god, you are right—they mean business,’ was all that he could gasp, as the myth, carefully perpetuated by New Delhi, that the Chinese would not react, came crashing down with the mortar bombs that were falling around the hastily prepared defences of the Punjabis. The next thirty minutes were to be a watershed of sorts in modern warfare. No commander had so obviously deflated in front of his officers as Kaul did that morning—gone was his bluster of the previous day."
― from "1962: The War That Wasn't"

[nam]

But once they come to Arunachal - they will look at Assam and say "hey how about that area - even better for us"

Need to keep them away using the tip of a long spear.

Hmm, which is what happened in 62, except their LOC broke.

If they had continued further, they would have joined up with PA in East Pakistan.

Pakis must have known that India China are getting in to conflict as soon as Tibet was invaded. My CT tells me there must have been a plan.

From our end, we neuter the third front in 71.

[ranjan.rao]

There was some idrw reports(FWIW), that pakistan was coaxed by USA to not join china in this war and settle things for themselves and then they unilaterally initiated it in '62

[shiv]

One of the changes that I would like to see over time is a reduction in the "language of fear" that is used in India by the media - and the public, when it comes to China. This topic has come up before on BRF.

I raise it in the context of statements issued by China about the proposed visit of the Dalai Lam ato Arunachal Pradesh and the planned railway line. At least two media portals - WION and another "defence" portal have stated that China "warns" India. Mind you - "warning" someone always has an element of threat or coercion. But read the statement. It could just as well be written as China frets over India's decisions. or China protests/howls. The latter words are words of strength and confidence that say "F*ck you". But "warns" is a dhoti shiver. We need to get out of this psyche of fear of China. We do not interpret signals right as long as we look north with fear.

[nam]

One of the changes that I would like to see over time is a reduction in the "language of fear" that is used in India by the media - and the public, when it comes to China. This topic has come up before on BRF.

I raise it in the context of statements issued by China about the proposed visit of the Dalai Lam ato Arunachal Pradesh and the planned railway line. At least two media portals - WION and another "defence" portal have stated that China "warns" India. Mind you - "warning" someone always has an element of threat or coercion. But read the statement. It could just as well be written as China frets over India's decisions. or China protests/howls. The latter words are words of strength and confidence that say "F*ck you". But "warns" is a dhoti shiver. We need to get out of this psyche of fear of China. We do not interpret signals right as long as we look north with fear.

I would say this fear mongering has it's use. Nations need "threat", real or perceived to bring out the best. I would like the media constantly asking the GoI where are the roads promised in North East, when the Chinese have build "large number of roads". People in BRF may know the reality, people who need to know may know the reality.

Having Pakis as neighbours has been a great advantage in a way. If not for them we would not have weaponised our nukes. Arjun would not have come if Pakis were not playing around with M1A1. We would not have been testing BMD if not for Pakis giving nuke threats every Friday.

The US used the threat from Soviets to make tremendous technological gains, which serves them even to this day. The Chinese are using the US threat to grow.

If not for Pakis & Chinese, we would have been implementing Cachaji's dream. Be the bigger version of Iceland. A police state with no Army.

To prevent our civilisation from being subjected the genocides what our forefather's faced, we need a big enemy. Perceived or real.

[Liu]

^^^There is a religious angle to the Tawang fixation.

The monastery in Tawang belong the 'Yellow hat' sect of Tibetan Buddhism, the same sect to which Dalai Lama belongs. The 6th Dalai Lama (current Dalai Lama is 14th in series) was born at a place close to Tawang. The current Dalai Lama has also said that next incarnation could be born outside of Tibet. Given the historic linkage of Tawang with Yellow Hat sect and previous instance of 6th DL being born here, the Chinese fear that next DL could be from this region.

the most simple reason is that Tawang is different from other disputed areas between china and india.

Except Tawang,all other disputed areas between china and india are really “disputed”( it means neither china/tibet nor Britain/india had administrations/police/officials there before china/tibet and britain/india discussed tibet~india boundary line in 1914. those area were self~dominated tribe areas or uninhibinated areas.)

Tawang had been undisputed historical territory of tibet for hundreds of years at least (if not over 1000 years), before british india invaded and annexed it during 1930s or 1940s.

Since 6th Dalai lama was born here, Tawang is already holy land to all Tibetans.

Since china insists that Tibet be a part of China and Tibetans be chinese citizens, it is the moral and legal resposibility of China to take back tawang for tibetans

[NRao]

Since china insists

That is the problem.


BTW, the birth of a DL can take place anywhere. So to associated the birth PLACE of a DL to a Tibetian area is wrong to start with. IF the next DL is born in Timbuktu, then China will lay a claim on that place in Africa too. Not that China needs any reason to say or act in any fashion she wants. Logic is not one of her strong points.

[GShankar]

Entire Tibet is holy land for all Tibetans. It is their motal and legal responsibility to take it back for themselves.

And Kailash is holy land for all Indians. It is the motal and legal responsibility of India to take back Kailash for Indians.

[shiv]

Tawang had been undisputed historical territory of tibet for over 1000 years, before british india invaded and annexed it during 1930s or 1940s.

Since 6th Dalai lama was born here, Tawang is already holy land to all Tibetans.

Since china insists that Tibet be a part of China and Tibetans be chinese citizens, it is the motal and legal resposibility of China to take back tawang for tibetans

Rubbish. Chinese Han can hardly reach Tibet without dying of altitude sickness and you hold Tibet with force. So you can take your fairy tale and enact a Mao style Opera for Li Xinping or wheoever

[Liu]

Once during the Simla conference of 1914,Tibetans agreed to cede Tawang to British india, on the precondition that Britishmen sucessfully forced China to acknowlege the independence of Tibet and accept the Tibet~china boundary so called.

At that time, newly~born Republic of China resisted the pressure from Britishmen and reasserted that Repubic of China be the successor of all rights of imperial China to Tibet（including sovereinghty）.

thus,Tibetans thought the deal's preconditions was not realized,and the deal of course was aborted.


Britishmen seemed to think so too and did not invaded/took over Tawang until 1930s or 1940s.

However,during 1930s or 1940s, Britishmen changed their idea,invaded Tawang and expelled Tibetans's administrations there.


When Chinese regained their actual control of Tibet in early 1950s, Britain/india had oppupied Tawang for over 10 years.

[Liu]

Since china insists

That is the problem.


BTW, the birth of a DL can take place anywhere. So to associated the birth PLACE of a DL to a Tibetian area is wrong to start with. IF the next DL is born in Timbuktu, then China will lay a claim on that place in Africa too. Not that China needs any reason to say or act in any fashion she wants. Logic is not one of her strong points.

A difference is that Tibetans never had administrations in Timbuku,while Tibetan administrstions had worked in Tawang for hundreds of years before British india invaded in 1930s or 1940s.

you can not ignore it.

[nam]

A difference is that Tibetans never had administrations in Timbuku,while Tibetan administrstions had worked in Tawang for hundreds of years before British india invaded in 1930s or 1940s.

you can not ignore it.

So why did you give Tawang back in 62? Did someone forgot in that year?

[ranjan.rao]

Liu, Was chinese administration there in Aksai Chin before 60s?

[nam]

For all the claim on Tawang, as soon as they crossed it, the PLA realised that they were facing the prospect of fighting against overwhelming Indian divisions and IAF in Assam. Their loc had collapsed, so no food, no water, no ammo & no air cover.

The PLA would have been decimated and what would happened next? The Indian units would turn their attention towards Lhasa with no PLA guarding the gates!

The "Liberation Army" quietly went back to where it started to prevent a Indian counter attack.

[Liu]

Liu, Was chinese administration there in Aksai Chin before 60s?

before 1950s, neither china/tibet nor Britain/india had any administration in Aksai Chin.

at that time,Aksai chin was a uninhibinated area as a natural buffer between china/tibet and Britain/india.

According to a boundary line（Johnson line） unilaterally written by britishmen, Britishmen seemed to think Aksai Chin should belong to British india.

however, Johnson line was just a unilateral one,and Chinese/tibetan never accepted it.（in fact,Britishmen even never officially noticed it to china/tibet）


Morever, Britain/India had never set up any administration in Aksai Chin ,after Johnson line was unilaterally written on maps.

In fact,Aksai Chin remained uninhibinated without any administration （like the moon today?）before in 1950s Chinese set up one highways and other administrations there.

because india had not any administration in Aksai Chin, india（including Nehru）did not know the existence of Chinese highway in Aksai Chin,until Chinese papers celebrated the finish of the highway.

[ranjan.rao]

so going by that logic(if you know what it means) we can have tawang..as we have controlled/administered it for more almost 70 years; more than what chinese did with aksai chin?

[ranjan.rao]

Not to forget does any such logic apply for the UNCLOS ruling on SCS? I am keen to hear what chinese "deep throat"s have to say while swallowing hard and long .....truth...

[Liu]

so going by that logic(if you know what it means) we can have tawang..as we have controlled/administered it for more almost 70 years; more than what chinese did with aksai chin?

well,
there is a huge difference.

that is, when in 1950s chinese took over Aksai Chin,chinese had nothing to expell there.

however,when british india took over Tawang in 1930s~1940s, they expelled Tibetan administrations there,which had worked there for hundreds of years.

[NRao]

That is the problem.


BTW, the birth of a DL can take place anywhere. So to associated the birth PLACE of a DL to a Tibetian area is wrong to start with. IF the next DL is born in Timbuktu, then China will lay a claim on that place in Africa too. Not that China needs any reason to say or act in any fashion she wants. Logic is not one of her strong points.

A difference is that Tibetans never had administrations in Timbuku,while Tibetan administrstions had worked in Tawang for hundreds of years before British india invaded in 1930s or 1940s.

you can not ignore it.

Thanks. Proves China was never in the picture.

[NRao]

We need to focus on measures to evict China from Tibet.

[rohitvats]

I welcome this discussion on historical ownership of disputed territory between India and China.

Presence of Liu on this thread and the arguments he's giving is a reminder of how little Indians (except a few) know about their own history. Especially when it comes to conflicts such as Sino-Indian boundary dispute.

It's good that Liu is sharing his side of the ownership debate. Gives a window to what the Chinese think or irrespective of what they think, the arguments they'll use to make their claim.

See how beautifully he makes the argument about no one controlling Aksai Chin and it becoming the boundary between British India and Tibet only through unilateral action of British. The sleigh of hand is wonderful. In case of Tawang, he quotes history because right or wrong, he's history to quote. In case of Aksai Chin, he's nothing to quote. Ergo, it becomes a No-Man's Land which was appropriated by the Britishers unilaterally.

Never mind the fact caravans from Ladakh and Kashmir were operating through Aksai Chin for many years before Britishers drew the Johnson Line. And that Kashmir Kings maintained posts right up to Shahidullah. And that neither Chinese nor Tibetans had anything to do with Aksai Chin.

As Margaret W. Fisher, Leo E. Rose and Robert A. Huttenback remarked in their book - Himalayan Battleground: Sino-Indian Rivalry in Ladakh (London: Pall Mall Press, 1963)

A contemporary commentary on this mountain of evidence remarks that ‘it is quite evident that as far as consistency is concerned – and the length of time the claims have been advanced – the advantage lies with the Government of India’. No official Chinese maps showed Aksai Chin as part of China before the 1920s, and a Sinkiang map of the 1930s showed the Kunlun rather than the Karakoram to have been the customary boundary – which had been the Indian claim all along. At least in the western sector (where the Chinese transgressions had taken place) India seemed to have the stronger case. ‘The Indian Government was both thorough and careful in presenting its case’, whereas the Chinese presentation was marked by a ‘maze of internal inconsistencies, quotations out of context, and even blatant and easily discernible falsehoods’.

But Liu has some friends in India itself. There are many leftist historians who argue on the same line as him.

Let him continue with his side of argument with whatever 'proofs' he can share. Good insight for rest of us.

[Liu]

Not to forget does any such logic apply for the UNCLOS ruling on SCS? I am keen to hear what chinese "deep throat"s have to say while swallowing hard and long .....truth...

there are some similarties between Chinese claims of SCS（9 dashes）and india's one of sino~india boundary lines（mainly Johnson line and Mcmahon line）.q

that is ,both are looked on as unilateral boundary lines,rejected by the neighbours now.

however,there is a difference too.

that is, Chinese did set up administrations in disputed islands（in 1946-1947.Chinese navy took over those islands from Japan as the victory fruit of WWII）.
britain/india had never set up any administration in many sections of disputed areas.

morever,as a part of the final of WWII, chinese taking~over small islands in SCS was under the bless or endorsement of USA（owning the philips） ,france （owning Vietnam）and Netherland（owning indonisia）at that time.
so, 9 dashes was once not unlateral boundary line and accepted by the neighbours while Johonson line and Mcmahon line have never been accepted by China.

[Liu]

A difference is that Tibetans never had administrations in Timbuku,while Tibetan administrstions had worked in Tawang for hundreds of years before British india invaded in 1930s or 1940s.

you can not ignore it.

Thanks. Proves China was never in the picture.

After 17th or 18th century,china set up an indirect dominance in Tibet ,as Britain did with india

well, without the endorsement of chinese imperial administrations, Dalai Lama and his ministers would be deposed or sacked.（in fact,several Dalai Lamas were indeed deposed by Chinese imperial goverment）

If China was never in the picture,then Britain was also never in the picture of india history.

it is not since 1950s,but since 17~18th century that Tibet has been tied with China closely.

such a tie might not be welcomed by most indians,but it indeed helps Tibet out of the poverty&backward trape of 3rd world and brings tibetans higher life quality ,better education ,mediccare and infrastructures than Tibetans foreign neighbours（India,Bhutan,Nepal and Pakistan）

[sanjaykumar]

Chinese do understand the difference between then and now, past and present?

Again Mongolia is the rightful inheritor of China, why be selective? Or is consistency against the CCP's directives?

[ranjan.rao]

so going by that logic(if you know what it means) we can have tawang..as we have controlled/administered it for more almost 70 years; more than what chinese did with aksai chin?

well,
there is a huge difference.

that is, when in 1950s chinese took over Aksai Chin,chinese had nothing to expell there.

however,when british india took over Tawang in 1930s~1940s, they expelled Tibetan administrations there,which had worked there for hundreds of years.

So by that LOGIC the part of pangong tso that China is illegally OCCUPYING will be returned to us, because we were "expelled from there"
Also, did we expel you from tawang in 1940? otherwise why did you leave it. Now india has been administering it for 70 years so our recent administration doesnt matter.
Are you going to ask chinatown in new york 100 years down the line as as the local counseller there is going to be of chinese origin? I was thinking of islamabad first, but then i realized you dont need to as you're already renting it.
It is in these moments i miss our local yak herder from mongolia where he adds lols to the subjects of empe-lol xi Gin Ping
Chi-irs

[sanjaykumar]

Liu? ....I guess he's awaiting instructions from the Central Committee.

[NRao]

After 17th or 18th century,china set up an indirect dominance in Tibet ,as Britain did with india

Thanks. Again. I am glad you agree that Tibet was never a part of China.


You see in free India we read history.

[NRao]

BTW, Lui, what is your/Chinese reasoning to build through disputed territory in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir?

This wil be a great exercise in rewriting history for you/China. Hint: Pakistan was a part of India.