India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020

[anupmisra]

Here's another map which predates the 1962 war. One can see where the original border was. Also, note the origin of the map. Draw your own conclusions.

http://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/i ... -44-09.jpg

[Guddu]

Prem, What if Pakis give up G-B? Or forced to?

Sir, care to elucidate why pak would "give up" G-B...seems like hopium to me.

[ramana]

Its speculation on why. Hence I asked what if?

[AdityaM]

Guys is it a mere coincidence that the Chinese did their dastardly act on Colonel Santhosh Babu on 15 June which is the same date as Xi Jinping's Birthday, was killing him and 3 Indian Soldiers some preplanned Birthday gift for dear leader by the PLA which all went wrong once the Indian soldiers did not take it lying done but gave it back.

Not true I would say. All this got triggered when our solidiers went to check on them & tempers went out of control. (Irrespective of whose land was where)
There was no way for the Chinese to preplan a visit by Indian soldiers.

Col Babus killing could not have been preplanned for that day & time.
Perhaps Chinese had moved out the existing soldiers thinking they were soft in discussions with Indians & brought in their aggressive folks.

But at least the killing of Col Babu & the events of that day was a situation that evolved and not something that the Chinese had preplanned.
Unless they knew the minds of our men or our communications

[LakshmanPST]

Don't know how to post image here, but there is an interesting photo here (Someone please post the image here)--->
https://twitter.com/AceAdventure5/statu ... 0074049538

Photo seems to be old (but some ppl are passing it-off as recent one)...
But as someone highlighted few posts back, Indian perception of LAC is actually 1km South-East of the bend... PP14 is also at this location almost on the LAC, NOT at the triangle area of the bend...

This made me thinking, how did we assume that the triangle area at the bend is the location of the clash...???
After thinking a bit, I realized that it was due to some satellite image which showed some structures dismantled there after Jun16... Otherwise, we didn't really have any real information...
The satellite experts simply assumed that Red line on Google Earth as the default LAC...

If the LAC is 1 km South East to the bend, every piece falls in place...
1) Nithin Gokhale's assertion that the tents at the triangle are our tents...
2) It matches with the Chinese CCTV special program aired recently where they showed Indian positions which are almost 1km South East of the bend---> https://twitter.com/detresfa_/status/12 ... 4168499202

I guess we have been wrong the whole time...
----
EDIT:- Apparently this photo is a creation of Ajay Shukla... I thought it is a credible old newspaper pic after I saw even AnantaKrishnan tweeting it...
I'm leaving this post here though...
Mods may delete it if they feel it is misleading...

[Prem]

Prem, What if Pakis give up G-B? Or forced to?

Sir, care to elucidate why pak would "give up" G-B...seems like hopium to me.

Paki will try to lease it to China but XI now knows we will not play dead and grab it regardless of who control it . Local population is already in revolt and they are pro India . IMHO, if no other land front opened by China against us in next few months then Paki countdown start this year. End may be sooner than expected . Paki are gonna be main causality of this current tiff.

[banrjeer]

Gurus, can you decode Mike Pompeo's statement, especially th bolded part:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indi ... SKBN2492D7

“The Chinese took incredibly aggressive action. The Indians have done their best to respond to that ,” Pompeo said in a news conference at the State Department.

What does 'doing their best' mean? Pappu and his slaves like Ajai Crooklaw will now sieze on this and say 'no evidence' of Chincom troops killed as crooklaw said in his NYT propaganda attack on ModiJi.

Among all the asinine attacks on ModiJi, the most asinine of all of them was from some Hindu reporter asking "who will bring justice to the 20 troops killed" to a BJP spokesman on a debate. Even assuming the question has validity for those martyred in war, the insinuation that somehow ModiJi must be punished as justice for the troops martyred is most seditious and shameful.

Perhaps he wants to imply India could do with some US help(arms/intel) which is OK. Also gajar also needs some friction with the dragon in order to avoid getting halwaoed in November

[mody]

Brahma Chellaney in today's HT. I kind of agree with him. Disengaging with China, without imposing a cost is not going to solve the issue for us. What is to prevent China from doing this next year or the year after and on a bigger scale or at a different place?

https://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/ ... c7GUN.html

"China’s territorial revisionism has been unrelenting. Under Mao Zedong, China more than doubled its size by annexing Tibet and Xinjiang, making it the world’s fourth- largest country in area. Under Xi Jinping, China’s expansionism increasingly threatens its neighbours, big and small. Xi’s regime has just opened a new territorial front against one of the world’s smallest countries, Bhutan, by disputing its eastern borders.

In this light, the outcome of China’s aggression against India will have an important bearing on Asian security. If the current India-China military disengagement ends up like the 2017 Doklam disengagement in making China the clear winner, an emboldened Xi regime will likely become a greater threat to neighbours.

China’s strategy after its disastrous 1979 invasion of Vietnam has been to win without fighting. Deception, concealment and surprise have driven China’s repeated use of force — from seizing the Johnson Reef in 1988 and the Mischief Reef in 1995 to occupying the Scarborough Shoal in 2012 and now vantage locations in Ladakh. It has changed the South China Sea’s geopolitical map without firing a shot or incurring any international costs.

China has displayed its art of deception even in its disengagement process with India. The first accord of June 6 to disengage collapsed after the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) erected structures on Indian territory and then ambushed and killed Indian Army men on verification patrol. The disengagement process restarted after Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi seemed to let China off the hook with his June 19 speech at the all-party meeting. But the fresh process became a ruse for PLA to encroach on two new Indian areas — the Depsang Y-Junction; and the Galwan Valley site of the ambush killings.

India and China are now in their third disengagement series. But while the previous two abortive rounds followed military-level talks, the latest cycle is being driven politically. We now know that Modi’s July 3 Ladakh visit, and his tough words there, were essentially designed to create domestic political space for his government to seek de-escalation with China. Barely 48 hours after his visit, India and China hammered out a disengagement deal.

Will the latest deal stick? Having encroached on key areas that overlook India’s defences, PLA is sitting pretty. A full return to status quo ante as sought by India seems remote, thanks to India’s own mixed signals. Moreover, by encroaching on additional areas behind the previous disengagement facade, China has armed itself with greater leverage to impose a revised status quo, including by applying the precept that “possession is nine-tenths of the law”.

Disengagement (pullback of rival forces from close proximity), if not de-escalation (ending hostilities through demobilisation of forces), meshes well with China’s interest in presenting India a fait accompli. Removing the threat of an Indian counteroffensive or Indian tit-for-tat land grab will help China win without fighting.

This explains why China has accepted disengagement — but on its terms. This is illustrated in the Galwan Valley, where India has pulled back from its own territory and created a “buffer zone” on its side of the Line of Actual Control (LAC). These steps, though temporary, create a new, China-advantageous status quo that PLA could seek to enforce because it keeps India out of China’s newly-claimed zone — the Galwan Valley.

The risk that, like at Doklam, the current disengagement may not end well for India is high. Instead of demonstrating strength and resolve, India has displayed zeal to end the stand-off, despite its armed forces being mobilised for possible war.

At a time when the international environment is beginning to turn against China, India could have prolonged the stand-off until winter to compel restoration of status quo ante. But, instead, it has kicked status quo ante down the road and settled merely for disengagement. This allows China to hold on its core territorial gains and trade the marginal occupied territories for Indian concessions, as part of its well-known “advance 10 miles and retreat six miles” strategy.

Far from imposing military costs, India has shied away even from trade actions against the aggressor, as if to preserve the option of another Modi-Xi summit. India’s steps so far (banning Chinese mobile apps and announcing an intent to restrict Chinese investment in some areas) have been designed to assuage public anger at home, but without imposing substantive costs on Beijing or damaging bilateral relations.

In 1967, a weak India, while recovering from the 1962 and 1965 wars, gave China a bloody nose. But in 2017 and again now, after its soldiers displayed extraordinary bravery in tackling China’s aggression, a nuclear-armed India hastily sought disengagement. Its decision-makers remain loath to fundamentally change the China policy even when faced with aggression.

Bite by bite, China has been nibbling away at India’s borderlands, even as successive Indian PMs have sought to appease it. When political calculations trump military factors and a nation lives by empty rhetoric, it can win neither war nor peace.

The present path risks locking India in a “no war, no peace” situation with China and imposing mounting security costs. This path aids China’s time-tested strategy of attrition, friction and containment to harass, encumber, encircle, deceive and weigh India down.

If India wants Himalayan peace, it must make China pay for its aggression to help create a deterrent effect. The present aggression — the most serious since the 1960s — resulted from India letting China off the hook too easily in 2017, allowing it to capture Doklam. And if China emerges the winner from the current crisis, its next aggression could be worse. Only a chastened China saddled with high costs and loss of face will rein in its aggressive expansionism.

[mody]

Here's another map which predates the 1962 war. One can see where the original border was. Also, note the origin of the map. Draw your own conclusions.

http://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/i ... -44-09.jpg

Personally would gladly accept the border as shown in this map. The map is only upto the Pangong lake and does not show the areas further north.

Basically the Macartney-Macdonald line is what it seems to be showing.

[Armuan]

Sir, care to elucidate why pak would "give up" G-B...seems like hopium to me.

Paki will try to lease it to China but XI now knows we will not play dead and grab it regardless of who control it . Local population is already in revolt and they are pro India . IMHO, if no other land front opened by China against us in next few months then Paki countdown start this year. End may be sooner than expected . Paki are gonna be main causality of this current tiff.

How pro-India is the local population in G-B? There appears to be conflicting reports online. From Wikipedia that says Gilgit did not favor to be part of India at the time of independence (religion could have played a huge role as most, if not all of them, follow Islam), and even now prefer to be part of Pakistan proper (2009 - 2010).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgit-Baltistan

"The people of Gilgit-Baltistan want to be merged into Pakistan as a separate fifth province,[22][23] however, leaders of Azad Kashmir are opposed to any step to integrate Gilgit-Baltistan into Pakistan.[94] The people of Gilgit-Baltistan oppose any integration with Kashmir and instead want Pakistani citizenship and constitutional status for their region.[22][23] "

Multiple responses in Quora also seem to state they would like to be called Pakistanis.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-the-people ... or-Indians

I realize these are not sacrosanct sources. And there are some articles that claim G-B is pro India.
https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news ... -india-bnf

I see these views from dissenters and political activists. I am not sure if this is a commonly held view. G-B is a fairly large area (72,971 sq. km, with an estimated population 1.8 million or more). Such dissentions could be from local pockets perhaps?

Can knowledgeable folks weigh in? Is there is a different thread that is appropriate for this. Thank you.

[chetak]

confucius institutes: the hans have many of these in India.

along with the britshit council and alliance francais, goethe institut, max muller bhavan, american center, iran culture house, russian centre of science & culture and what not

do we have any such centers in these countries operating on the same scale as they are doing in India

of course not. we foolishly believe in ahimsa, vasudhaiva kutumbakam and athiti devo bhava when no one else does.

Facing Backlash Over Propaganda And Censorship, China Scurries To Rebrand Confucius Institutes

Swarajya Staff - Jul 9, 2020


China is attempting to rebrand Confucius Institutes following a worldwide backlash over censorship and fears in universities that they serve as propaganda centers for the policies advocated by the country’s communist regime, South China Morning Post reported.

The country’s Ministry of Education has directed that the Beijing-based Confucius Institute Headquarters, or Hanban henceforth be called as Ministry of Education Centre for Language Education and Cooperation.

Modeled on the Goethe Institute and Alliance Française of Germany and France respectively, Confucius Institutes were ostensibly set-up by the country’s Communist government to promote and teach Chinese culture and language around the world. Confucius Institutes develop Chinese language courses, train teachers, hold the HSK Examination (Chinese proficiency test), and provide information about contemporary China.

In reality, Confucius Institutes operate to help China project its soft power in the guise of teaching Chinese language and culture. It has also helped expand China’s economic, cultural, and diplomatic reach. Experts say that one important goal of such institutes is to influence host countries’ view of China. For example, Tibet and Taiwan are taboo and the official ‘One China policy’ is promoted.

Confucius institutes in many Western universities have faced opposition for trying to surreptitiously act as a front for the Communist party views on Taiwan and Tibet and subverting the academic freedom of those universities.

Several American universities have shut their Confucius Institutes in the past few months amid concerns about creeping Chinese government influence on US education.

[Philip]

Mody,I agree too.China has to be punished.The easiest methods we can take are non-military,economic and diplomatic.The economic measures have started well but need to be expanded further anc faster,but the diplomatic measures abysmal! I amcsorry but the MEA ( Min. of Eunuchs and Asses) is our weakest link. No wonder Doval was sent to meet the Chink FM.Instead of "men of steel" manning the missions abroad and at South Block,we have "men of sponge" instead. China keeps on claiming more and more of Indian territory on the map,followed up by its forces and we simply act defensively. This has been going on for decades. Big minus points for this min. in the NDA-2 era .
Our current FM ,ex-babu,who spent a few years in Beijing as ambassador, allegedly knows no Mandarin too.In fact the entire China desk/experts should be pensioned off. For a v.long time they've issued only stapled visas for our citizens living in J& K and Ar.Pradesh.How have we retaliated? Kept our tail firmly between our legs.The bunch of surrender monkeys in the MEA and Chin think tanks must be dumped and replaced by pro- Indian specialists both military and diplomat with indecent hsste.

Furthermore,our MEA budget must be enhanced greatly,with more staffers at missions abroad.Noted US mil. expert Luttwak mentioned this fact.Even little Sweden has a larger staffing said he. The Chinks have invested hugely in their missions abroad with the so-called " wolf warior" diplomats all batting aggressively for Beijing. From my experience of Indian missions,they're understaffed ,require more military and scientific attaches especially inthe major developed countries, specialist mission secretaries for economics/ trade who actively promote and assist corporate India and MSME exports, plus extra consulates and missions abroad. Our utter neglect ofthe NAM where WE were thd top dog, with numerous Afro- Asian nations members who looked upto us,is a great ommission,fondly kmagining that by clinging on to Uncle Sam's coat-tails, all would be taken care of. This has been evident in Pak still unleashing cross-border terror against us and the UX now wanting to make a deal in Afg. with the ISI creation the Talibdn! Every such nation has a vote at the UN, has some geo-strategic value,mineral wealth,etc. By our abandoning the NAM org.we allowed the Chinks to gladly step in with a major African outreach that has paid them rich dividends.They're vacuuming up the enormous mineral and energy wealth of Cabinda ( under Angolan control), squatting in Djibouti with a military base and are looking for more IOR havens for the PLAN.

Unless our foreign policy is twinned to our security needs too,it will fail miserably. Our " Look East" outreach oto ASEAN and the Far East launched 2 decades ago has borne little fruit. In that time China has gobbled up the atolls and islands in the Indo-China Sea ( SCS), where there is so much of Indian cultural and religious heritage.Vietnam and Cambodia have innumerable thousand yr.+
Hindu temple sites with massive lingams even larger than at home! We have not leveraged our soft power enough. A highly aggressive attitude is reqd. A new policy towards Tibet and Taiwan must be set in motion leading to the recognition of both states.

Back to the frontline. Only a continuous steady buildvup of forces on the various fronts with China will force it to pause and calculate the costs of conflict which it came fully prepared for in Ladakh. Our build up simultaneously supported by the mentioned eco and dpl. measures will inflict the punishment that hurts and demands an attitude changd towards India.

[pankajs]

Brahma Chellaney in today's HT. I kind of agree with him. Disengaging with China, without imposing a cost is not going to solve the issue for us. What is to prevent China from doing this next year or the year after and on a bigger scale or at a different place?

https://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/ ... c7GUN.html

"China’s territorial revisionism has been unrelenting. Under Mao Zedong, China more than doubled its size by annexing Tibet and Xinjiang, making it the world’s fourth- largest country in area. Under Xi Jinping, China’s expansionism increasingly threatens its neighbours, big and small. Xi’s regime has just opened a new territorial front against one of the world’s smallest countries, Bhutan, by disputing its eastern borders.

In this light, the outcome of China’s aggression against India will have an important bearing on Asian security. If the current India-China military disengagement ends up like the 2017 Doklam disengagement in making China the clear winner, an emboldened Xi regime will likely become a greater threat to neighbours.

China’s strategy after its disastrous 1979 invasion of Vietnam has been to win without fighting. Deception, concealment and surprise have driven China’s repeated use of force — from seizing the Johnson Reef in 1988 and the Mischief Reef in 1995 to occupying the Scarborough Shoal in 2012 and now vantage locations in Ladakh. It has changed the South China Sea’s geopolitical map without firing a shot or incurring any international costs.

China has displayed its art of deception even in its disengagement process with India. The first accord of June 6 to disengage collapsed after the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) erected structures on Indian territory and then ambushed and killed Indian Army men on verification patrol. The disengagement process restarted after Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi seemed to let China off the hook with his June 19 speech at the all-party meeting. But the fresh process became a ruse for PLA to encroach on two new Indian areas — the Depsang Y-Junction; and the Galwan Valley site of the ambush killings.

India and China are now in their third disengagement series. But while the previous two abortive rounds followed military-level talks, the latest cycle is being driven politically. We now know that Modi’s July 3 Ladakh visit, and his tough words there, were essentially designed to create domestic political space for his government to seek de-escalation with China. Barely 48 hours after his visit, India and China hammered out a disengagement deal.

Will the latest deal stick? Having encroached on key areas that overlook India’s defences, PLA is sitting pretty. A full return to status quo ante as sought by India seems remote, thanks to India’s own mixed signals. Moreover, by encroaching on additional areas behind the previous disengagement facade, China has armed itself with greater leverage to impose a revised status quo, including by applying the precept that “possession is nine-tenths of the law”. {Which area has China encroached that overlooks India's defenses? This is generic without any details ...}

Disengagement (pullback of rival forces from close proximity), if not de-escalation (ending hostilities through demobilisation of forces), meshes well with China’s interest in presenting India a fait accompli. Removing the threat of an Indian counteroffensive or Indian tit-for-tat land grab will help China win without fighting. {India/China moving equally back from the LAC will "present India a fait accompli" ?!!! Is this analysis?

Further, this moving back "Removing the threat of an Indian counteroffensive" ? Really!! This is so high on rhetoric that I don't even know what to say}

This explains why China has accepted disengagement — but on its terms. This is illustrated in the Galwan Valley, where India has pulled back from its own territory and created a “buffer zone” on its side of the Line of Actual Control (LAC). These steps, though temporary, create a new, China-advantageous status quo that PLA could seek to enforce because it keeps India out of China’s newly-claimed zone — the Galwan Valley. {Again, from all reports, we understand that the buffer is on BOTH sides of the LAC.}

The risk that, like at Doklam, the current disengagement may not end well for India is high. Instead of demonstrating strength and resolve, India has displayed zeal to end the stand-off, despite its armed forces being mobilised for possible war.

At a time when the international environment is beginning to turn against China, India could have prolonged the stand-off until winter to compel restoration of status quo ante. But, instead, it has kicked status quo ante down the road and settled merely for disengagement. This allows China to hold on its core territorial gains and trade the marginal occupied territories for Indian concessions, as part of its well-known “advance 10 miles and retreat six miles” strategy. {I means how do your restore status quo ante WITHOUT trying to restore status quo ante!!!}

Far from imposing military costs, India has shied away even from trade actions against the aggressor, as if to preserve the option of another Modi-Xi summit. India’s steps so far (banning Chinese mobile apps and announcing an intent to restrict Chinese investment in some areas) have been designed to assuage public anger at home, but without imposing substantive costs on Beijing or damaging bilateral relations. {This is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin!! This is classic rhetoric.}

In 1967, a weak India, while recovering from the 1962 and 1965 wars, gave China a bloody nose. But in 2017 and again now, after its soldiers displayed extraordinary bravery in tackling China’s aggression, a nuclear-armed India hastily sought disengagement. Its decision-makers remain loath to fundamentally change the China policy even when faced with aggression.

Bite by bite, China has been nibbling away at India’s borderlands, even as successive Indian PMs have sought to appease it. When political calculations trump military factors and a nation lives by empty rhetoric, it can win neither war nor peace.

The present path risks locking India in a “no war, no peace” situation with China and imposing mounting security costs. This path aids China’s time-tested strategy of attrition, friction and containment to harass, encumber, encircle, deceive and weigh India down.

If India wants Himalayan peace, it must make China pay for its aggression to help create a deterrent effect. The present aggression — the most serious since the 1960s — resulted from India letting China off the hook too easily in 2017, allowing it to capture Doklam. And if China emerges the winner from the current crisis, its next aggression could be worse. Only a chastened China saddled with high costs and loss of face will rein in its aggressive expansionism.

Chellaney whole analysis is suspect. Full of rhetoric with few facts thrown in for effect.

As to the posters comments ...

1. Disengaging is the 1st step to de-escalation. The steps are to be gradual. Without disengagement there is no de-escalation. IFFFFFFFFFFF we have to start we have to start somewhere. Therefore disengagement!
2. The process is slow baby step-by-step because there is NO trust between the armies. That is not difficult to understand. It will necessarily be stretched out with the final outcome known ONLY months later. To declare it a success or failure at this stage is out of question.
3. That it COULD fail at any step is given. Preparation for carrying the current deployment through the winter is on. Does it need to be explained why?
4. "Imposing cost" has a very funny ring to it. It could be a military cost, or financial or trade/business cost or reputational or a mix. So far, we have imposed military cost with the IA boys doing their bit. This was followed by imposing financial/trade/business cost by GOI. The June 15/16 fight has imposed a reputational cost on China too.
   
   The only cost that GOI has not imposed is of grabbing a territory across the LAC. But since we are in a deescalatory mode why would we escalate?
   
   BTW, IFFFFF the status quo ante is restored fully, it would impose "additional" reputational cost on the Chinese. This can only be judged AFTER the fact.
5. Finally, the Chinese puzzle is NOT going to be solved by imposing a "small" cost on China. China, like Bakistan, is an ideological state. Like Bakistan, China will not be deterred by imposing a cost on them. No matter what cost, short of complete decimation the Chinese project to become the sole superpower cannot be stopped and that project necessitates the subjugation of India.
   
   The currently dished out cost will not stop China nor would India grabbing a small territory under Chinese control stop it. So expect Chinese to keep needling India year after year.

[pankajs]

Mody,I agree too.China has to be punished.The easiest methods we can take are non-military,economic and diplomatic.The economic measures have started well but need to be expanded further anc faster,but the diplomatic measures abysmal! I amcsorry but the MEA ( Min. of Eunuchs and Asses) is our weakest link. No wonder Doval was sent to meet the Chink FM.Instead of "men of steel" manning the missions abroad and at South Block,we have "men of sponge" instead. China keeps on claiming more and more of Indian territory on the map,followed up by its forces and we simply act defensively. This has been going on for decades. Big minus points for this min. in the NDA-2 era .
Our current FM ,ex-babu,who spent a few years in Beijing as ambassador, allegedly knows no Mandarin too.In fact the entire China desk/experts should be pensioned off. For a v.long time they've issued only stapled visas for our citizens living in J& K and Ar.Pradesh.How have we retaliated? Kept our tail firmly between our legs.The bunch of surrender monkeys in the MEA and Chin think tanks must be dumped and replaced by pro- Indian specialists both military and diplomat with indecent hsste.

Furthermore,our MEA budget must be enhanced greatly,with more staffers at missions abroad.Noted US mil. expert Luttwak mentioned this fact.Even little Sweden has a larger staffing said he. The Chinks have invested hugely in their missions abroad with the so-called " wolf warior" diplomats all batting aggressively for Beijing. From my experience of Indian missions,they're understaffed ,require more military and scientific attaches especially inthe major developed countries, specialist mission secretaries for economics/ trade who actively promote and assist corporate India and MSME exports, plus extra consulates and missions abroad. Our utter neglect ofthe NAM where WE were thd top dog, with numerous Afro- Asian nations members who looked upto us,is a great ommission,fondly kmagining that by clinging on to Uncle Sam's coat-tails, all would be taken care of. This has been evident in Pak still unleashing cross-border terror against us and the UX now wanting to make a deal in Afg. with the ISI creation the Talibdn! Every such nation has a vote at the UN, has some geo-strategic value,mineral wealth,etc. By our abandoning the NAM org.we allowed the Chinks to gladly step in with a major African outreach that has paid them rich dividends.They're vacuuming up the enormous mineral and energy wealth of Cabinda ( under Angolan control), squatting in Djibouti with a military base and are looking for more IOR havens for the PLAN.

Unless our foreign policy is twinned to our security needs too,it will fail miserably. Our " Look East" outreach oto ASEAN and the Far East launched 2 decades ago has borne little fruit. In that time China has gobbled up the atolls and islands in the Indo-China Sea ( SCS), where there is so much of Indian cultural and religious heritage.Vietnam and Cambodia have innumerable thousand yr.+
Hindu temple sites with massive lingams even larger than at home! We have not leveraged our soft power enough. A highly aggressive attitude is reqd. A new policy towards Tibet and Taiwan must be set in motion leading to the recognition of both states.

Back to the frontline. Only a continuous steady buildvup of forces on the various fronts with China will force it to pause and calculate the costs of conflict which it came fully prepared for in Ladakh. Our build up simultaneously supported by the mentioned eco and dpl. measures will inflict the punishment that hurts and demands an attitude changd towards India.

Full or rhetoric and wrong on facts too ...

Doval took charge as the Border special rep.! This has come up on the forum multiple times and been corrected.

When one looses contact with reality on lists all measures you have listed as "Diplomatic measures". The FACT remains, the Chinese are able to buy influence worldwide because of the economic power. Our neglect of our economy after the initial burst of reform following 1991 is coming back to bite us.

Rest is all hogwash.

[mody]

Sir, care to elucidate why pak would "give up" G-B...seems like hopium to me.

Paki will try to lease it to China but XI now knows we will not play dead and grab it regardless of who control it . Local population is already in revolt and they are pro India . IMHO, if no other land front opened by China against us in next few months then Paki countdown start this year. End may be sooner than expected . Paki are gonna be main causality of this current tiff.

One plausible fantasy scenario would be if India and China strike a bargain. India agrees to join the BRI projects, with a road and rail projects running through Bangladesh and northeast India, into Myanmar and then to China. Also, direct China India links. In return for India joining the BRI, china forces pakistan to give up Baltistan and part of Hunza, such that the Khunjerab pass becomes a tri-junction border between India-China and Pakistan.
This way India can keep tabs on all the material passing through the KKH and also get to levy some customs duty. Most of Gilgit remains with pakistan. Maybe Astore would also become part of India.
For all of this to happen, the Indo-Chinese border in the east would have to be completely settled.

[LakshmanPST]

Tomorrow, even if war starts and India defeats China on Land, Air, Sea, Space, Liberate Tibet and Xinjiang, Break up China into four parts and even overtake China's GDP, still Chellaney will be complaining...

[pankajs]

SuSwamy has gone rogue ... No wonder he has been kept at arms length from government. This while there are OSINT sat image analysis backing the disengagement.

However, there is a caveat. Because the move is step-by-step, Chinese have not gone back far enough between F4-8 on Pangang Tso.

https://twitter.com/NewsX/status/1280839232819322883

#SwamySaysOnNewsX | I challenge the government to produce evidence of Chinese withdrawal from Indian territory: Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39 ) BJP Rajya Sabha MP speaks to NewsX’s @Priyascorner

[parashara]

I guess we have been wrong the whole time...

Without a doubt

[RaviB]

How pro-India is the local population in G-B? There appears to be conflicting reports online. From Wikipedia that says Gilgit did not favor to be part of India at the time of independence (religion could have played a huge role as most, if not all of them, follow Islam), and even now prefer to be part of Pakistan proper (2009 - 2010).

I see these views from dissenters and political activists. I am not sure if this is a commonly held view. G-B is a fairly large area (72,971 sq. km, with an estimated population 1.8 million or more). Such dissentions could be from local pockets perhaps?

Can knowledgeable folks weigh in? Is there is a different thread that is appropriate for this. Thank you.

I know a guy from G-B who's a local chieftain, owns a hotel there and is quite prominent. We haven't directly spoken about it but it's clear that on his side there's not even the slightest thought that they would join India. There's some local anti-Punjabi and anti-Army sentiment. But that's mostly due to local power struggles. For example one Army general built up a hotel in "his area" (the society is quite feudal) which the locals made sure never worked out, destroyed the road and some buildings. He's now set up an environmental NGO to oppose new tourist infrastructure to make sure no competition arises. There's also the question of royalties from Diamer Basha dam. He's also become an environmentalist to oppose the dam so that eventually they get more royalties from the federal government (if it is ever built). Otherwise the impression I got was that he's well connected with the agencies and does consulting for gas companies down south and all sorts of fixer stuff.

He's not representative but still one gets a feel for the situation. There's also a large presence of the Agha Khan foundation in the local economy due to a large number of Ismaili muslims. There's very little sectarian tension because the AKF manage everything very carefully.

So the chances of locals wanting to join India are IMO close to zero.

[Aditya_V]

With respect to GB- there is no special attachment to Pakistan or India or China- they will go with the one who is more powerful. Thier population is not high enough for an insurgency.

Quite frankly it will be a bigger version of inducting Chalunka, Turtuk, Tyakshi and Thang in India in Dec 1971

[chetak]

How pro-India is the local population in G-B? There appears to be conflicting reports online. From Wikipedia that says Gilgit did not favor to be part of India at the time of independence (religion could have played a huge role as most, if not all of them, follow Islam), and even now prefer to be part of Pakistan proper (2009 - 2010).

I see these views from dissenters and political activists. I am not sure if this is a commonly held view. G-B is a fairly large area (72,971 sq. km, with an estimated population 1.8 million or more). Such dissentions could be from local pockets perhaps?

Can knowledgeable folks weigh in? Is there is a different thread that is appropriate for this. Thank you.

I know a guy from G-B who's a local chieftain, owns a hotel there and is quite prominent. We haven't directly spoken about it but it's clear that on his side there's not even the slightest thought that they would join India. There's some local anti-Punjabi and anti-Army sentiment. But that's mostly due to local power struggles. For example one Army general built up a hotel in "his area" (the society is quite feudal) which the locals made sure never worked out, destroyed the road and some buildings. He's now set up an environmental NGO to oppose new tourist infrastructure to make sure no competition arises. There's also the question of royalties from Diamer Basha dam. He's also become an environmentalist to oppose the dam so that eventually they get more royalties from the federal government (if it is ever built). Otherwise the impression I got was that he's well connected with the agencies and does consulting for gas companies down south and all sorts of fixer stuff.

He's not representative but still one gets a feel for the situation. There's also a large presence of the Agha Khan foundation in the local economy due to a large number of Ismaili muslims. There's very little sectarian tension because the AKF manage everything very carefully.

So the chances of locals wanting to join India are IMO close to zero.

in the end, the POK pakis are what they are and that one immutable fact will never ever change and it is a fact that we often forget that the pakis, the pokis and the beedis are all ummah.

yes, sure they want to "join" India, just like clever angler wants a baited fish hook to "join" the fish

yindoos will never learn.

why open a second front in cashmere and why are we trying to justify their shortcomings to fool ourselves. ummah never changes its core agenda, they often change colors like a chameleon, for the best fit of social, political and financial profit.

were the ismalis not among the most active of jinnah's supporters during the partition and the most virulently and actively anti India/Hindu sects during those times

Pandering to POK and the china BRI virus: this is appeasement, plain and simple, and naively hoping that the cheeni predator will eat you last. let the pokis make a fight of it first and then like beediland in 1971, we may help out if needed. we all know how the beedis finally turned out.


the cheeni will do ghanta in stopping the paki terrorists from crossing the border, no matter what you give up and what BRI crap you want to join and what "agreements" you enter into with them.

They need the ready built Indian ports and transportation links + infrastructure to hedge against gwadar and the overland routes from gwadar being blockaded and they want us to commit hara kiri by allowing them free access to our markets and free access to enable their banks to take over large Indian industries. Most of all they need a subservient Indian govt that they fully control and that is why they have bet on the farzi ghandhys.

A swift kick in the testimonials is something that the cheeni understand best. They are paying India back for maldives by swallowing nepal whole and we will insist on keeping the Indo nepal borders open despite the paki and cheeni influencing all aspects of nepali society for almost a decade now.

I know an ismali family here in India and they are openly kattarpanthi and as anti modi as anyone can get and have absolutely no qualms in voicing their "opinions" openly.

the ismalis are not here because they love India but merely and opportunistically because foolish, exploitable, and democratic India gives them a free run and our fatal weakness of "ahimsa, vasudhaiva kutumbakam and athiti devo bhava" has been cleverly exploited by them for many tens of decades.

where ever the ismails are, they know full well which side of the bread is buttered and also who is the most influential baker

please read up on aga khan.

most ismalis support Modi because of taqiya. their foundational text is the same as all the others with some minor variations/addendums to include some aga khan guy who has a god complex

[pankajs]

BTW, I myself feel that after sounding reasonable with partial withdrawal from Galwan, Hot Springs & Gogra sectors, the Chinese are mostly going to stall in Pangong Tso area.

This is when the real test of Modi will start. If the Chinese are able to stonewall Modi/India with some movement, some promises and some time killing negotiation and drag this thing beyond the winter, Modi will have a major political hot potato.

If the Chinese have not gone back across the LAC and moved out of all disputed areas by August END i.e. in about 2 months, Modi/India should start thinking of pushing them out forcefully. Even if they don't go back to their peacetime location, the ingress should be vacated form all black and grey zones.

AND finally, even while we wait for the outcome of disengagement, India should continue with trade/business/economics & diplomatic measures to keep the pressure on China. So we should proceed with inviting Australia for Malabar and continue engaging with the Quad.

While the non-military push-back should be measured there should be no letup.

[ks_sachin]

How pro-India is the local population in G-B? There appears to be conflicting reports online. From Wikipedia that says Gilgit did not favor to be part of India at the time of independence (religion could have played a huge role as most, if not all of them, follow Islam), and even now prefer to be part of Pakistan proper (2009 - 2010).

I see these views from dissenters and political activists. I am not sure if this is a commonly held view. G-B is a fairly large area (72,971 sq. km, with an estimated population 1.8 million or more). Such dissentions could be from local pockets perhaps?

Can knowledgeable folks weigh in? Is there is a different thread that is appropriate for this. Thank you.

I know a guy from G-B who's a local chieftain, owns a hotel there and is quite prominent. We haven't directly spoken about it but it's clear that on his side there's not even the slightest thought that they would join India. There's some local anti-Punjabi and anti-Army sentiment. But that's mostly due to local power struggles. For example one Army general built up a hotel in "his area" (the society is quite feudal) which the locals made sure never worked out, destroyed the road and some buildings. He's now set up an environmental NGO to oppose new tourist infrastructure to make sure no competition arises. There's also the question of royalties from Diamer Basha dam. He's also become an environmentalist to oppose the dam so that eventually they get more royalties from the federal government (if it is ever built). Otherwise the impression I got was that he's well connected with the agencies and does consulting for gas companies down south and all sorts of fixer stuff.

He's not representative but still one gets a feel for the situation. There's also a large presence of the Agha Khan foundation in the local economy due to a large number of Ismaili muslims. There's very little sectarian tension because the AKF manage everything very carefully.

So the chances of locals wanting to join India are IMO close to zero.

We want our land. Pakistan can keep the people

[AshishA]

Today I came across a very interesting article while I was searching about Offset Strategy with Chinese characteristics. It was titled Force development options for India by 2030 by CNAS

Here's the link to that paper-
https://www.cnas.org/publications/repor ... ia-by-2030

So it was essentially an a paper on how India should deal with China. Although it was written by an American, It was quite neutral IMHO and grounded in reality. While I was reading this, I came across certain things that increased my interest 10 fold.

The thing that struck me the most was how accurately it predicted the events of June 15 and it's aftermath. And it was written in Oct 2019. Here's what it said -

A border conflict between China and India could occur for a variety of reasons and the direct cause would shape China’s strategy. For example, if China were seizing a key piece of terrain, it might seek to avoid engaging Indian forces. If, however, China were seeking to teach India a lesson as it did in 1962, it might instead target a vulnerable Indian unit to cause attrition or take prisoners. If China were seeking a broader reordering of the political-military status quo in the region, its approach might be more deliberate and expansive.

And how we perceive things on the border -

Public discussion of India’s military strategy in these scenarios suggest overly ambitious ends that do not comport with India’s ways and means. On the border, India seeks to defend all of its terrain with light forces and to reinforce this forward posture quickly, while also counterattacking into Chinese territory with heavier maneuver forces to seize terrain to compel conflict termination or for post-conflict negotiation. Defending every inch of “sacred soil” is a rousing phrase and there are undoubtedly strong political compulsions behind the adoption of such a military strategy.

And how we might deal with the border conflicts.

In a border conflict, India should use combat engineering to improve infrastructure on its side of the LAC, but simultaneously rig the infrastructure for detonation to prevent Chinese forces from exploiting penetration and potentially cut off their lines of advance and communication. Rigging hillsides with explosives to create avalanches and landslides is an excellent way to slow movement or create heavy casualties.

Instead of a preclusive defense, India should hold key points, isolate them with firepower (especially tactical guided munitions), and use infiltration tactics to cut off and surround Chinese forces in valleys. There, Indian forces could impose attrition or hold Chinese forces hostage for political concessions.

Tbh what's mentioned in the paper is happening in reality now. We are building up our border infrastructure and I am confident that Indian Army would have placed some fail-safe measures to deny the use of that infrastructure to the enemy.

And I was very impressed by the suggestions to counter China militarily in the long run in that article. Very realistic and pragmatic. Though a few I might not agree with but I still understand what the author is trying to say. So basically main gist of the article is that due to our budgetary and economic constrains, we must create a strategy similar to what Americans did against Soviet Union during cold war and the Russians and the Chinese are doing against USA which is the Offset strategy. An offset is some means of asymmetrically compensating for a disadvantage, particularly in a military competition. So we must instead seek ways to offset our weaknesses and subvert Chinese strengths. And how we can do that is discussed in the paper. Tbh it helped me understand why CDS was proposing for more subs and why ASATs were necessary.

It's a really long document and I can't write everything here otherwise it will be too long.

So I would request all the gurus here to go through this article and pour in your thoughts regarding the suggestions and it's viability.

[SSridhar]

. . .Basically the Macartney-Macdonald line is what it seems to be showing.

Yes, that was what was in force on August 15, 1947 and that is what we claim, therefore.

[pankajs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhyRJ66UWR0
India must absorb pain of decoupling from China, no other way

Discussion between Ambassador Gautam Bambawale, former ambassador to China and Pakistan, Dr Rajesh Rajagopalan, professor of international politics in JNU & Tom Miller, senior analyst at Gavekal Research in Hongkong and London.


It starts with Ambassador Gautam Bambawale's conversations. Worth watching at least that part.

[Prem Kumar]

If the Chinese have not gone back across the LAC and moved out of all disputed areas by August END i.e. in about 2 months, Modi/India should start thinking of pushing them out forcefully. Even if they don't go back to their peacetime location, the ingress should be vacated form all black and grey zones

Will our relative advantage over the Chinese in terms of men, material & air-power increase/decrease/remain-the-same if winter sets in? If it decreases and our offensive options shrink, that might be a good reason for the Chinese to keep dragging this on till Winter

[KL Dubey]

Folks, its important not to worry too much about the "popular sentiment" of the POK and GB population. These areas are basically stuck in some kind of pre-1947 tribal mindset. They'll go with whoever creates stability and prosperity. It will obviously be our responsibility to inculcate "Indian-ness". In the last 10 years, even these people clearly know that is not on the cards with Pak. There may be no "show of support" for India, but equally I do not expect any resistance either. It will be basically the Pakjabi army trying to defend the area along with some "irregulars"/jihadis. We are already shelling the shyte out of all these guys in POK, so its not as if a military thrust into these areas is going to be out of the blue. Most of the POK population are Pakjabis of some kinds...we can tell the hardcore Paks among them to flee to the west ASAP.

[ramana]

Chellany is using Zohnerism .

[Hari Nair]

SuSwamy has gone rogue ... No wonder he has been kept at arms length from government. This while there are OSINT sat image analysis backing the disengagement.

However, there is a caveat. Because the move is step-by-step, Chinese have not gone back far enough between F4-8 on Pangang Tso.

https://twitter.com/NewsX/status/1280839232819322883

#SwamySaysOnNewsX | I challenge the government to produce evidence of Chinese withdrawal from Indian territory: Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39 ) BJP Rajya Sabha MP speaks to NewsX’s @Priyascorner

Lets shoot the message, instead of the messenger, may we?
I found some portions of the interview critical of the present euphoria and Doval's 'great triumph' in resolving the border issue. I agree with the Swamy's critique.
Lets concentrate on countering his arguments on the matter, instead of trashing him.
That 15 Jul 1962 paper headline of Chinese withdrawing from Galwan is genuine.

[CRamS]

Guys, I am sure you analyzed but it does seem the disengagement plan at Galwan has not satisfied super hawk Brahma Chellaney and Pappu slave ajai crooklaw one bit. Its becoming difficult to start taking Chellany seriously. While he has no political compunctions and he is no ModiJi hater, but he seems unreasonably hawkish without actually suggesting what India can do. All he says is India has the best mountain fighting force and is not being use. So all he wants is war. And I don't think ModiJi is going to oblige just yet.

Crooklaw on the other hand is as usual is being devious and duplicitous. His motive is not to expose Chincom aggression. Nor India's interests. His single minded obsession is to mock ModiJi and contemptuously attack and bring down BJP. For him, this Chincom aggression is a tool to depict BJP as a bunch of Muslim hating cowards led by ModIji who can only take on Muslims. So his current hawkish analysis (from the same guy who wanted to surrender Siachen to TSP, or the same guy who was singing a diametrically opposite tune when Chincoms invaded under his queen madam) can be dissed with the contempt it deserves

[pankajs]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7810&start=5600#p2446862

Notes ...

• LAC is beyond PP-14 (triangular ledge @ the bend) on the Chinese side but just beyond. My calculation, based on "The Hindu" report that Chellaney had used to buttress his absurd narrative, is that LAC is about 250 m from the PP-14 on the Chinese side.
• Remember, GOI acting surprised when the Galwan became the center of action because that area the "perceptions" of both sides are in agreement.
• The Chinese "estuary" claim is the area around the LAC and not the junction of Galwan/Shyok.
• The Chinese did intrude into our area by about 250-400 meters and pitch tents.
• When the Indian forces took the fight to the Chinese, they did cross the LAC to hit back.

Based on the above, we can conclusively debunk Chellaney and his narrative that the dis-engagement @ Galwan is unequal.

https://twitter.com/detresfa_/status/12 ... 3831550976

d-atis @detresfa_

“If you want to understand the confusion surrounding the shifting lines in #GalwanValley, here’s a map based on “Documents” & "Sources"

GOI PP-14: The triangular ledge @ the Galwan river bend
GOI LAC (via NMenonRao): 440m from GOI PP-14 on the Chinese side

Ajay Shulka's PP-14 & LAC: 780m from GOI PP-14 on the Chinese side

GOI's LAC is "document" based pulled out by ex-FS where as Ajay Shukla's LA is "source" based.

[pankajs]

^^
Based on the above, as I had concluded before, Chellaney's narrative stands completely debunked.

1. BOTH sides moved back equally from the LAC at Galwan
2. Buffer between the armies is almost equally distributed on both side of the LAC.

[schinnas]

Chellaney is not someone to unnecessarily lose his credibility. There is a good chance that he may be intentionally (or even with unofficial encouragement from powers that be) to build a narrative of pressure on govt to act. There are benefits to such a strategy.

[CRamS]

Brahma Chellaney has been consistent in his pro-India, but extreme hawkishness on Chincom and TSP, so I don't see him do any damage to India's interests, but beyond a point I can't take his hawkishness seriously.

But Pappu traitors and their frauds like crooklaw are doing immense damage to India's interests. The Chincoms are watching this internal tamasha very carefully, and they are not stupid to not realize that the hawkishness by ModiJi haters is not about them (Chincoms) but an internal "get ModiJi" spectacle. So they are going to use these internal fault lines to their advantage.

[williams]

Guys, I am sure you analyzed but it does seem the disengagement plan at Galwan has not satisfied super hawk Brahma Chellaney and Pappu slave ajai crooklaw one bit. Its becoming difficult to start taking Chellany seriously. While he has no political compunctions and he is no ModiJi hater, but he seems unreasonably hawkish without actually suggesting what India can do. All he says is India has the best mountain fighting force and is not being use. So all he wants is war. And I don't think ModiJi is going to oblige just yet.

Crooklaw on the other hand is as usual is being devious and duplicitous. His motive is not to expose Chincom aggression. Nor India's interests. His single minded obsession is to mock ModiJi and contemptuously attack and bring down BJP. For him, this Chincom aggression is a tool to depict BJP as a bunch of Muslim hating cowards led by ModIji who can only take on Muslims. So his current hawkish analysis (from the same guy who wanted to surrender Siachen to TSP, or the same guy who was singing a diametrically opposite tune when Chincoms invaded under his queen madam) can be dissed with the contempt it deserves

I think Chellaney would like to see some action since he does not like the amount of infrastructure on the Chinese side and it is possible he is encouraged to be hawkish. Shuklaw does not have any credibility and someone needs to discredit him before it gets out of hand. It should not come from GoI or anyone who is remotely associated with GoI.

[chetak]

BTW, I myself feel that after sounding reasonable with partial withdrawal from Galwan, Hot Springs & Gogra sectors, the Chinese are mostly going to stall in Pangong Tso area.

This is when the real test of Modi will start. If the Chinese are able to stonewall Modi/India with some movement, some promises and some time killing negotiation and drag this thing beyond the winter, Modi will have a major political hot potato.

If the Chinese have not gone back across the LAC and moved out of all disputed areas by August END i.e. in about 2 months, Modi/India should start thinking of pushing them out forcefully. Even if they don't go back to their peacetime location, the ingress should be vacated form all black and grey zones.

AND finally, even while we wait for the outcome of disengagement, India should continue with trade/business/economics & diplomatic measures to keep the pressure on China. So we should proceed with inviting Australia for Malabar and continue engaging with the Quad.

While the non-military push-back should be measured there should be no letup.

the hans are all about saving "face" and though it may take perhaps a few months or more, they will eventually pull back and bide their time to do some mischief elsewhere.

India's reaction and the huge support for India from many countries have unnerved the chinese.

come what may, we must not back down from our trade, investment and app bans

[ramana]

The most important of Clausewitz’s teachings is this: "To wage a war successfully, a nation’s people, its army and its government must agree on a clearly defined objective. Without that, neither the physical, fiscal nor psychological costs of war can be shouldered for as long as victory usually takes."

Until NaMo was elected in 2014, wrt Pakistan GOI did not follow this dictum. Finally by the end of his first term, after Pulwama, this was done for a majority of the people. This led to Balakot and finished TSP as a threat. What is being done now is the mop-up. WRT China till Galwan this dictum was also not followed. There were multiple aims and views with typical windbags giving advice.

[ramana]

Hari Nair,
What do you find credible in SuSwamy challenge?

[pankajs]

https://twitter.com/rajnathsingh/status ... 1850497025

Rajnath Singh @rajnathsingh
I congratulate all ranks of BRO for completing these bridges in the record time.These projects are the life lines in far flung areas close to border.

The Govt is regularly monitoring the progress of all BRO projects and adequate funds are being given for their timely execution.

6 bridges inaugurated today. Signalling China.

https://twitter.com/Iyervval/status/1281138278658240513

Abhijit Iyer-Mitra @Iyervval

Why has my friend Ajai Shukla ceded 720meters of Indian territory to China between the 24th of June to 9th July in the space of just 15 days? Or did the LAC miraculously pick itself up through supernatural forces and move itself 720 meters north?

#CryBelovedCountry