kirpalbasra wrote:nishant.gupta wrote:I have a thought process which I wanted to share here. Pure assumption based with some facts.
India has never been an aggressor. We (all of us from left to right) take immense pride in this fact as well and consider this for some reason to be a matter of prestige or something.
India has a history of being reactive rather than being proactive. Even in the current situation, all our actions suggest that we continue to be that. We are increasing forces only when the Chinese are doing the same. We are giving them all time for talks. We are taking small actions on the economic front as signals to China to back off but next action is happening only after checking response on first one.
Pakistan is a vassal state of China. They are too deep into it to decide anything for themselves. If promised a couple of billion, they will probably sell the country to China and go sit in a raft in Arabian Sea.
China has a history of creating a situation in one place and then acting in a completely different place. (Even Modiji has the same history but his is purely political)
As some previous posts pointed out, China reacts to international issues by being aggressive and usually comes out better with more land.
So where am I taking this?
A glance on the map and entire border of China and India (everyone knows this I guess), we have three borders with China. One which goes is in Ladakh all the way to Nepal border in which the issue is going on, second in Sikkim and third in AP.
While Ladakh is the first finger in the overall plans of China, Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim & AP are the remaining 4 fingers.
Sikkim in my opinion at present gives the most strategic advantage to China. Ladakh is good to show but it does practically nothing for China. They already have connection to Pakistan and if India wanted to take GB, not having Ladakh will not stop them. AP is the same and even lesser in value compared to Ladakh for now. Sikkim on the other hand literally gives them a way to cut off India into two at any time. This will make it far easier to take AP and maybe the whole NE in the future whenever they want. A highway via Sikkim (or AP) to Bay of Bengal becomes a high possibility which makes a lot more economic sense for them compared to CPEC which is risky due to the thousand Paki issues and they know that.
Is it possible that the intention is to keep all media, attention, talks etc etc engaged in Ladakh while preparing for a short swift strike in Sikkim and occupying land there? By the time IA can mobilize, strike is over and they go into defensive positions which is more tenable. Some more points which can work in their favor:
Doklam three years back could have simply been an information gathering exercise to get a feel of forces on ground. The short fist fight in beginning of May this year could be the same.
With forces currently at LAC, they have a well laid out highway to move things any time they want by road if needed. It will take 24 hours from Pangong Tso. For IA to do similar redeployment, it will take 2.5 days via Delhi - roads which are bad and used by public.
A relatively small number of well targeted missiles can take out the current IA in Sikkim and losses for Chinese can be minimized.
They can assume safely (due to history) that India does not go offensive and the Pakistani deployment which has already happened will make sure that IA has to be wary of moving troops away from Northern borders.
War could be over by the time GoI and Indian fauj can ever realize.
They will not only be shown to be super powerful back home as well as define terms at the border but they will have got a huge strategic advantage against India for future.....
Am I making sense? Or is the reason for browning my dhoti only because of overindulgence in Biryani?
Very good read . You are right China will only strike where they can win .And if they strike here could be linking up with Bangladesh in the future who seems to going over to then Chins. A Chinese naval base here would mean Indian navy will have its work cut out.
Tibet to Bangladesh road corridor via Sikkim idea makes a lot of sense for China. I have heard of it before either on the forum or elsewhere.
However the facts are ...
2a. Indian forces have been alerted all across the border including Sikkim and AP.
2b. While it is true that redeployment for the Chinese would be easier given the relatively flatlands of Tibet compared to the mountainous terrain on the Indian side, it misses a very important point. The India force that will be mobilized to confront an aggressive China on Sikkim front wont be the ones stationed in Ladakh but from Bengal, etc.
IIRC, only yesterdin on the forum or on twitter, in response to someone fear of a thrust into the Chicken's neck by the Chinese, someone else pointed out that the area had 3 Divisions permanently deployed. 3 Divisions is what India has deployed at present to mirror the Chinese current deployment in Ladakh! How much time will they take to move from the Siliguri corridor up to Sikkim borders while backup is rushed to reinforce the corridor from the hinterland?
3. Missiles don't win war, else US would have had a pacified Afghanistan long time ago. They do degrade infra but winning is a different matter. Too much of Gulf war syndrome.
4. Again, IA has been preparing for 2 front war for a while now. It can keep Bakis at bay while it fights the Chinese in Sikkim. The troops for Sikkim would come not from Indo-Bak border.
5. IA will not be surprise nor will it be overwhelmed by missile strikes if any. It will retain its capacity to defend the border whole reinforcements are rushed in from the hinterland.
While the idea of a Tibet-Sikkim-Bangladehs corridor is attractive it will not work.