India-China War 2013 - Trigger: Incursion into India

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 04 May 2013 10:39

Cross posting from the military responses thread Shiv opened.

Some thoughts on how to handle this militarily.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1451919

For the purposes of this post, I will assume that the Manmohan Singh administration is not completely packed with traitors from top to bottom; difficult as it is to ignore a proven and incontrovertible political reality, here goes.

A few things to consider:

1) 3:1 ratio. This is a magic number that was thrown around by many "experts" during Parakram, after 26/11 and so on. The idea is that, to make consequential territorial gains, the attacker has to create and sustain a 3:1 advantage in firepower, manpower etc. (including force-multipliers) along a substantial section of the border. This will enable the attacker to grind down the border by attrition.

So my point is: what is true for Pakistan with respect to India, must be true for India with respect to China also no? PLA is not going to make any consequential territorial gains unless they can build up and maintain a 3:1 force advantage at chosen points along the ICB (India-China Border.) If the IA can hold down this ratio to 3:2 or even 2:1, PLA can't make significant inroads.

We know that PLA has a far better infrastructure to rely on for deployment. Yet, I find it difficult to believe the IA's logistics are so incompetent as to be unable to prevent the buildup and maintenance of such a huge ratio at any point along the border.

So ideally, at the first rung of the escalation ladder, we have Indian and Chinese troops deployed in all theatres of activity but with the Chinese never enjoying the 3:1 ratio at any point. Artillery and rocket duels take place, skirmishes occur, but PLA cannot get anywhere. IA can hold most territory, and regain whatever is lost in isolated Chinese thrusts.

2) The second rung of the escalation ladder involves what may need to be done in order to prevent PLA from gaining and maintaining a 3:1 advantage at any point along the LAC/ICB. A major force-multiplier for the IA is the IAF. Two major disadvantages for the PLA are (a) long supply lines vulnerable to interdiction, that must be held open if they have any hope of maintaining 3:1 advantage on the LAC/ICB. (b) high-altitude airfields in Tibet decrease the payload of flights that have to take off so far above sea level.

So the key question is: can India prevent China from enjoying 3:1 advantage along the border, WITHOUT using the IAF to hit logistical nuclei and arteries deep inside Chengdu MR? Can we fight a "purely defensive" air war, as in Kargil, never crossing the LAC/ICB to any significant extent, and yet prevent PLA from achieving 3:1 advantage?

I ask this because, if we do use IAF in this manner we are giving an opening for China to escalate to its own second rung of the escalation ladder. This is the use of thousands MRBMs deployed in Tibet to hit a large swath of military, logistics, economic and possibly civilian targets all across north and northeast India. At this point we start taking economic hits at a higher order of magnitude than what would be required to merely sustain the IA presence along the LAC/ICB.

It is my assessment... based only on what I have read in BRF, mainly... that even at this second level of escalation, PLA in general would not be able to build up a 3:1 advantage at many points along the LAC/ICB. However, given severe infrastructural damage that their missile strikes will be able to inflict, they MAY be able to achieve a 3:1 advantage at one or very few select points along the LAC/ICB, from where they will launch the next level of escalation in the hope of ending the war in their favour.

3) The third level of escalation will probably be represented by a swift, massive Chinese offensive to seize a substantial chunk of Indian territory, such as a city (Tawang, Leh, Gangtok, or Itanagar most likely... deeper targets such as Gauhati or Siliguri possibly) and end the war on their terms. I believe the PLA might attempt to recapitulate the Russian victory over Georgia (2008) where, once the Russians and their allied militias had seized the city of Tskhinvali, it was all over but the hand-wringing and Georgia virtually had to give up any claims to Abkhazia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia-Georgia_war

Of course, India is not Georgia, but the morale shock of losing a high-profile target like a city, combined with the increasing economic stress of (a) deployment maintenance (b) losses to Chinese missiles across N/NE India might destroy the Indian will to continue the fight and force the GOI to sue for peace on China's terms.

At this point India has very few options. There is no chance of seizing a Chinese city of comparable size; we are simply not equipped to mount a drive to Lhasa even at the opening stages of a war let alone after having exhausted ourselves to the point where PRC has taken an Indian city.

i) We can dig in and hang on, hemorrhaging wealth, for a sustained war of attrition and covert ops to unseat the Chinese from the city they grab. Even an "asymmetric" war so to speak.

ii) We can attempt to expand our airstrikes to Chinese cities within range. Lanzhou, Chengdu, Kunming possibly though not likely. However, if there has been a significant air war by this point in the game, we may not have the assets to sustain any such campaign.

iii) We can gamble very high stakes, and try to make a credible show of escalating to nuclear exchange if the Chinese don't vacate whatever city they have captured.

Most likely we will do none of these, but sue for peace on very humiliating terms.

4) It is therefore of utmost importance that the Chinese never manage to grab and hold on to any substantial chunk of Indian territory, especially a city, for any significant amount of time. In terms of a time scale I don't think India would be prepared to fight this war for longer than a month, possibly two.

However, China will begin to look less indefatigable, more vulnerable, the longer the war goes on and no significant gains can be claimed. Consider the China-Vietnam conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War The Chinese were able to capture the heights of Lang Son, virtually surrounding the capital of Hanoi. Their aim was to try and force the Viets to draw in VA units that were then deployed in Cambodia, where they were maintaining security after having deposed a pro-Beijing dictatorship.

The Viets saw through the Chinese plan after the Russians shared satellite data with them regarding the PLA deployment. They did not come out and fight any major engagements with the PLA, but used guerilla tactics very effectively, killing over 70,000 Chinese. Meanwhile the deployment in Cambodia was kept intact, and major conventional units (upto 300,000 VA troops) concentrated for the defense of Hanoi rather than trying to take back the Lang Son heights. PLA was hurting from the guerilla hits, and realized they did not have the strength to ensure a victory in Hanoi without humiliating losses... so they declared "lesson has been taught, road to Hanoi is open", turned tail and left.

The reinforcement of cities and towns will be critical, more so than the prevention of wilderness land grabs by the PLA. We should not spread ourselves thin trying to defend every square inch of wilderness terrain (like the TSPA in Bangladesh) but ensure that the Chinese never take a populated area; meanwhile, guerilla tactics can be used to unsettle Chinese deployments on wilderness terrain within Indian territory.

The question is not just how to make the war more costly for China, but how to dig in for a long fight that will be least costly to ourselves. IF we can dig in and hang on, time is definitely on our side; and if we do it without overt escalation on anticipated rungs of the ladder, using asymmetric warfare wherever possible, China will find itself in a position where it can either escalate to a new order of conflict (large-scale missile/air strikes on Indian cities, etc.) that risks nuclear exchange, or it has to pull up stakes and go home. Loss of face will mount every day that it sits on Indian territory taking losses while not making any significant gain.

This is the point that we must push the Chinese to.

5) At the present time I don't think there will be major conventional involvement from Pakistan, simply because the US is in Afghanistan and (for their own interests) will GUBO the Pakis into avoiding any significant conventional misadventure.

However, there is no doubt the Pakis will do everything they can to give China asymmetric warfare support (upto and including Kargil-type grabs if they can.) They will activate all their proxies in J&K to create chaos in the IA's rear, sow FUD, disrupt supply lines such as the Srinagar-Leh highway etc. This will be no more than a headache for us to deal with in the larger scheme of things, but we should anticipate that it will be there.

member_23629 · Post by **member_23629** » 04 May 2013 11:10

If Hindu's editor were its Chinese counterpart, he would have been blindfolded and shot in the back of the head for writing a nonsense like that. This would not have required any trial or jury either. People who own The Hindu they are corrupt. They do not care that they are being an advocate of dark force (Chinese Leadership) which threatens humanity.

It is about time the shop of these traitors was shut with extreme prejudice. Toleration of voices which try to harm the interests of the race and openly bat for the enemies is fine, but only up to a point. After that, the race has to take firm action to weed out such elements. Too much liberal attitude allowed these traitors to openly support China in 1962. I heard this Naxal Ram dude had even begun to take Chinese language classes in the hope of netting a job once Chinese occupy India. There is the Fai network operating with impunity in India. The US quickly put him behind bars but in India, he would have happily retired. John Daya and co. openly protest against Indian PM on his visit to US. What use is so much free-for-all liberalism and whose interests is it serving?

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 04 May 2013 11:18

Rudradev wrote:5) At the present time I don't think there will be major conventional involvement from Pakistan, simply because the US is in Afghanistan and (for their own interests) will GUBO the Pakis into avoiding any significant conventional misadventure.

However, there is no doubt the Pakis will do everything they can to give China asymmetric warfare support (upto and including Kargil-type grabs if they can.) They will activate all their proxies in J&K to create chaos in the IA's rear, sow FUD, disrupt supply lines such as the Srinagar-Leh highway etc. This will be no more than a headache for us to deal with in the larger scheme of things, but we should anticipate that it will be there.

If Iran helps the Pakis, then the western front is much more likely. Iran and Pak can together cancel US ability to project power in the neighborhood from its bases in Afghanistan. In fact the current US retreat is because the Taliban has been helped by not just Pak but also Iran over the recent years. Having effectively put the US itself into withdrawal mode in Afghanistan, Iran could then offer its territory or air bases to Pak - as the Shah had done in 1965. Thus it could be involved passively in the war - without having to mobilize or devote any of its own forces. Iran has also demonstrated its ability to orchestrate violent uprising in Kashmir over the last few years, merely by a word from the Grand Ayatollah being telecast into homes. This is more penetrating soft power than even Pakistan has as a state.

Iranian involvement in this two-front war on India has the incentive of teaching India a lesson (Khamenei's sentiment for the past few years) and consolidating friendship with Pak over Baluchistan. Baluchistan binds Iran, Pak and China. Thus, when we consider a two-front scenario, Iran must be included in the Western theater. JMT.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 May 2013 11:23

Chinese chose a very opportune time to "invade" India. They saw that the current political dispensation in India had in the minds of Indians

become synonymous with corruption
become synonymous with anti-Hindu policies - (majority)
become synonymous with appeasement of other powers and countries
become synonymous with ignoring the military preparedness of the nation.

For too long and too often India had been acting like a wimp when faced with an external threat or situation.

Perhaps the Chinese themselves have certain intelligence about the nature of the current political dispensation than what is publicly known in India.

and thus both from the perspective of

India's level of military preparedness which is the result of years of political bungling,
the quality of the people manning the government,
the people's support to the current government, and
India's electoral cycle and politics

the Chinese found that there was no better time than the present to make their move.

Now it is true that political parties just before elections start marking their ground, non-partisan cooperation decreases and parties even start leaving the ruling coalition to escape anti-incumbency. That is the nature of politics in India.

If however that was the only challenge, and facing this incursion, this non-provoked invasion by an external power, Indians of all hues would have coalesced around the government, and strengthened its hands in facing the external threat. This would have been normal behavior of the Indian people irrespective of electoral cycle politics, views on government's failures in governance and even irrespective of charges of corruption.

However considering that the people have started considering

the regime not just as neutral, but as antithetical to Bharatiya Sabhyata, and
compromised by the influence of foreign powers,

the Indian people are left in a bind - they don't think that the present government would in fact look after India's interests and so are not willing to support it.

As such the regime is not capable of receiving support from any quarter - neither of the Hindu because of the above, nor that of the Muslim, because of Hindu ire at Islamofascism, nor of the Sikhs due to their inability to get justice for the Anti-Sikh riots of 1984. The communists would not support simply because they don't consider China an enemy. The yuppies in the middle class would not support simply because they are only into consumerism and economy.

The Indian Armed Forces would of course receive full support from all Indians. There can be no doubt about that.

But the political leadership would not receive any support, and in India, the Indian Armed Forces act under the direction of the political leadership, something that is not available.

So we have a political crisis due to the Chinese invasion - both at the government level as well as the people's level.

The present government has only increased the hesitation of the people in trusting it. Instead of drumming up people's support, the PM has called it a "localized affair". In fact the government has yet to show any anger at the Chinese at this blatant invasion.

So the Indian people and I guess to a large extent the Indian Armed Forces as well are in a fix due to lack of political leadership and initiative coming this government.

Practically speaking, I don't think the Indian people would be willing to repose their faith in this government. And Chinese knew that.

So we have the following options (others can suggest more):

The President Pranab Mukherjee dismisses this government, takes full executive control and sets up an interim government of technocrats and experienced armed forces chiefs to take care of the Chinese invasion.
All the parties set their differences aside, and they set up a national government, perhaps under the leadership of unifying figure, say a past popular President.
The UPA loses its majority in Parliament. The general elections are brought forward. The political parties agree not to make the Chinese incursion an election issue. A new government is set up as soon as possible which takes care of the Chinese invasion. In the meantime the Army is told to maintain vigilance and to make preparations.

These are not the most elegant solutions in times of war, but they may help galvanize popular support behind a political leadership, which is needed before going to war.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 May 2013 11:24

Carl India has a treaty with Iran to use their airfields in case of a conflict with TSP. NDA govt signed it.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 04 May 2013 11:31

ramana wrote:Carl India has a treaty with Iran to use their airfields in case of a conflict with TSP. NDA govt signed it.

ramana ji, I understand. But that was at a time when India and Iran were working together with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan against the Taliban. In recent years Iran has been aiding the Taliban. I don't know how wise it would be to bank on that treaty.

Added: In Kargill, it was Shi'a shepherds who had alerted the Indian Army. This time the same shepherds (who have Ayatollah Khomeini's picture hanging on their walls at home) could work against India, not help.

Added: Shah of Iran made a state visit to India in 1969/1970 also, but still supported Pakistan again in 1971. And he wasn't even a pan-Islamist. AND he was on great terms with the US.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 04 May 2013 11:47

ramana wrote:Carl India has a treaty with Iran to use their airfields in case of a conflict with TSP. NDA govt signed it.

Apart from Farkhor Air Base,Tajikistan,IAF does not have any air bases outside India. Operating out of Iran in current super hot environment( Israel hit Syria in airstrike today!) would not have any advantage neither strategic nor tactical.
India needs to secure all the eastern states yesterday and declare a "state of war" for all eastern states effective immediately.

Operating out of Bhutan might help against Chinese. Need to think this through though.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 04 May 2013 12:01

Chinese are sitting in a nulla as a 'statement of intent' not as a defender/attacker. Right now there is absolutely everything that IA can do. If the matter escalates even then IA has huge and overwhelming potential to turn Himalayas into a Thermopylae.

Had the chinese been intent on an attacking stance we would have seen the scenario that Vivek Ahuja ji puts out and Rohitvats ji propounds.

The scenario at present is a micro version of what I had tried to inject in the discourse having gotten inspired by the thought of somebody else on the forum. The scenario about 10-20 Kargils. This is just another Kargil. Only unlike Pakistan which had a small a_s and a big mouth the chinese have a small mouth and a big as_.

This like Kargil is not a mano-a-mano. This requires political brinkmanship and logistical nimble footedness.

Thankfully shiv ji has taken the military aspect to another thread and now I do not need to feel cramped in my replies.

BTW, shiv ji, Subu Swamy has on Yuppie TV stated that the silence of BJP is basically a blank cheque to the central govt. The opposition on this issue besides being helpful is also goading the govt. in a fit and proper dharmic manner to blo_dy do something.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 04 May 2013 12:08

Carl wrote:
Rudradev wrote:5) At the present time I don't think there will be major conventional involvement from Pakistan, simply because the US is in Afghanistan and (for their own interests) will GUBO the Pakis into avoiding any significant conventional misadventure.

However, there is no doubt the Pakis will do everything they can to give China asymmetric warfare support (upto and including Kargil-type grabs if they can.) They will activate all their proxies in J&K to create chaos in the IA's rear, sow FUD, disrupt supply lines such as the Srinagar-Leh highway etc. This will be no more than a headache for us to deal with in the larger scheme of things, but we should anticipate that it will be there.
If Iran helps the Pakis, then the western front is much more likely. Iran and Pak can together cancel US ability to project power in the neighborhood from its bases in Afghanistan. In fact the current US retreat is because the Taliban has been helped by not just Pak but also Iran over the recent years. Having effectively put the US itself into withdrawal mode in Afghanistan, Iran could then offer its territory or air bases to Pak - as the Shah had done in 1965. Thus it could be involved passively in the war - without having to mobilize or devote any of its own forces. Iran has also demonstrated its ability to orchestrate violent uprising in Kashmir over the last few years, merely by a word from the Grand Ayatollah being telecast into homes. This is more penetrating soft power than even Pakistan has as a state.

Iranian involvement in this two-front war on India has the incentive of teaching India a lesson (Khamenei's sentiment for the past few years) and consolidating friendship with Pak over Baluchistan. Baluchistan binds Iran, Pak and China. Thus, when we consider a two-front scenario, Iran must be included in the Western theater. JMT.

Iran coming into the war, even as a facilitator for major Pakistani conventional ops against India, will have much further-reaching implications than an Indian military response to China or even a two-front war against China and Pakistan. It has ramifications for the entire theatre of geopolitical contest from Syria/Lebanon to the Korean peninsula: a 1914-type scenario, albeit on a far vaster scale, where the US and Israel will get involved.

I think that risk is too great for Teheran to consider. The US Army and USAF are still in Afghanistan and in Gulf Arab countries, and the USN is still in the Persian Gulf in very considerable strength. Pakistan going to war against India puts US forces in Afghanistan at severe risk, and the US will push as hard as they can diplomatically and economically to prevent this from happening until the US-Afghan withdrawal in 2014. If it emerges that Iran is facilitating such a move by Pakistan there is a very real chance of the US becoming actively involved and initiating hostilites against Iran (which they've been itching to do anyway.)

Besides, for all Khamenei's occasional venting against India, I really doubt that the Iranians would be so eager to make an outright enemy of India at this time. They've got their hands full dealing with US threats, the Arab Spring aftermath, the peninsular Sunni Arab powers, and Syria. Making telecasts and so on, they will probably do, but it will amount to no more than an attempt to fish in troubled J&K waters IMO.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 04 May 2013 12:24

Would the US not permit a limited skirmish that allows India to be humiliated or provoked by China and its allies? Even more so to drive a wedge between India and Iran if Iran does choose to help Pak-China. Therefore, US restraint on Pak-Iran does not preclude possibility of limited war IMHO.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 04 May 2013 12:26

If Pakistan gets involved in a major conventional way in prosecuting a two-front war against India along with China, it's no longer a little skirmish or a limited war. If it's any more limited than that, Iran can do little to help Pakistan... what is the use of Teheran giving airbases or territory if Pakistan isn't conducting airstrikes (and fearing Indian retaliation) or if Pakistan isn't facing invasion by the Indian army?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 May 2013 12:28

ravi_g wrote:Subu Swamy has on Yuppie TV stated that the silence of BJP is basically a blank cheque to the central govt. The opposition on this issue besides being helpful is also goading the govt. in a fit and proper dharmic manner to blo_dy do something.

I agree with this statement. The nudges from BJP have been there. Modi has mentioned Chinese incursion in one or more speeches, but has not gone beyond just mentioning it.

That a foreign country comes and occupy your territory is a major major thing. So it is not as if BJP can't monetize it electorally.

BUT, BJP is urging the government to take a strong stance. They have been doing it constructively and according to parliamentary norms. As of yet, they have not adopted a language to show weakening political cohesion.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 04 May 2013 12:32

Added: article quoting US "expert" in WaPo makes China out to be the dove that is eager to "settle" the border dispute with India.

US media is anti-China wrt its claims in east and se asia. Not so wrt India.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 04 May 2013 12:50

These Umrikhans would love to have us fight their wars instead of our own.

So on one hand they would want us to settle all such disputes which force them to takes sides. OTOH all such people who are opposed to Umrikhans would like to avoid this aka Eyeran. This looks likely given the fact that Eyeran already enjoys a good amount of Chinese support and they would not want to be in the unenviable situation of having to choose between India and China.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 May 2013 15:53

Rudradev ji,

i) We can dig in and hang on, hemorrhaging wealth, for a sustained war of attrition and covert ops to unseat the Chinese from the city they grab. Even an "asymmetric" war so to speak.

I think that is the war we should choose!

All the routes into China from the South, West and North should be used to smuggle in weapons to all ethnic groups willing to fight China, especially Uyghurs and Tibetans. Indians soldiers too should get embedded into these groups.

The war needs to be expanded to all of China and all military posts should be attacked.

The whole of Western, Northern and Southern China should become a single huge Afghanistan for Chinese forces.

We should look at this invasion not as a threat, but as an opportunity to bring Afghanistan to China. In fact India should become the first country to now accept the East Turkestan Government-in-Exile as the legitimate government of China. Same thing with Tibet.

There is no reason to be pussy-footing about it anymore! Let's be open about it. They shed the "first blood" of Bharat Mata. Now we are going to bleed the Chinese dry!

And let's proclaim that we only give diplomatic support to the freedom fighters of East Turkestan and Tibet. However India cannot guarantee that some "non-state actors" are not involved.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 04 May 2013 19:08

I think the govt can take opposition into confidence and can do a nice psyops.

Imagine LKA/SS/AJ make statements in and out of parliament that if China doesn't leave the area within x days India should start retaliating and this time it should be a fight for liberation of Tibet so there will be no more border issues with China.

This will pi$$ off china to no extent. And the govt (ambassador to China, FM and PM) should concede the point that their govt doesn't have the numbers or the time (elections are nearby) to make the opposition to backdown and if push comes to shove will have to put that idea in action. After all India is democracy and INC has electoral political compulsions that Chinese communist party doesn't.

We should use our democratic setup to our advantage. If china gives InC some breathing space then INC should manipulate EVMs to get minimum majority to BJP so NM is put to Agni pariksha

In the meantime the military has to make all necessary logistical arrangements to meet this objective.

Perhaps this is the 2014 war everyone is waiting for. Let us get our Kailash back. Har Har Mahadev!

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 04 May 2013 19:20

Cross posting with some addition

The planned visit of China's PM Li to India will be his first foreign visit after he assumed his office. This latter fact appears to have severely blindsided India's political leadership causing them to adopt an initial pacifist response to the ongoing Chinese intrusion into India, which is perhaps the deepest into India since the 1962 war. To further confuse the matter, India in the last few months had avoided joining the US in an explicit alliance to contain China (remember Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's visit to India a few months back when India rebuffed him). This should have pleased China. India might have assumed that Mr. Li choosing India for his first foreign visit was a reward for India not supporting the US. The Indian leadership which is always driven more by reason, is honestly confused and unable to comprehend the meaning of the depth of the present intrusion (compounded by the establishment of camps) in light of the fact that China is also usually a country driven by reason (relative to jihadi countries of this world). I am also making this assessment because, the meek Indian response to this intrusion thus far is in sharp contrast to the efforts of India's Defense Minister AKA whose tireless efforts over the last few years has enhanced India's military strength in the Eastern Sector.

Is there a chance that India has provoked this incident? Perhaps, if India had been transgressing into Chinese perception of LAC aggressively - in other words extensively intruding into "Chinese territory." This is unlikely, since China has not complained about something of similar magnitude.

Another question is whether there a connection between the present intrusion and the recent US led military exercises in Nepal involving a large number of countries which pointedly excluded (and therefore insulted) China? Does China think that India was a "secret sponsor" of that exercise and needs to be insulted in response?

Given time Indian leadership will recover from their confusion and respond. Perhaps Western intelligence will share information with India, to help it better understand the meaning of the present events. The French President was there recently. Perhaps they can share any relevant comments that the Chinese leaders may have made about India. But the loss of time can be costly and irreversible loss of territory may be a consequence for India.x

Looking back, India's response in 1986 (Sumdorung Chu) was vigorous. Is this why China left India alone for a quarter century - barring thousands of relatively smaller border transgressions? Since then, China's economic output is perhaps 10 times greater and has significantly greater infrastructure in Tibet. Their arrogance has also grown in similar measure as evidenced by their problems with several other countries. The gap between Indian and Chinese economies has also widened. The latest intrusion also shows that they can embarrass India with only 50 soldiers instead moving thousands of men to India's border to do so.

At a minimum India has to give China CONSEQUENCE(S) for their mis-behavior. In this context, noting that India appears to have no more than a couple of divisions in the Western sector to counter PLA versus the 9 or so mountain divisions with the Eastern Command, perhaps, India should immediately start making noises (and actual plans) about raising more divisions in the Western sector. Agreed this will take years, but it will still be a CONSEQUENCE given to China. This is not enough by itself. Some IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE will be necessary. Ideas that come to mind include (a) local military responses without initially firing bullets if possible, (b) swallowing a little pride and getting into a closer alliance with the US immediately similar to PM Nehru's appeal to the West for help during 1962, (c) calling off Salman Kurshid's visit to China which will also cancel Mr. Li's India visit, (d) provide increased military aid (nuclear and missile) to SE Asian countries, (e) ??. Of these item (a) seems most appealing so long as India has enough relative military strength in Ladakh.

By the way, in case my thoughts annoy the "anti dhoti shivering" group in BR which fervently believes that China cannot (will not?) threaten India militarily, then, I hope we can agree to disagree without abuse.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 May 2013 19:20

The Chinese are hoping they can use their logistics, supply lines, heavy weapons and missiles to intimidate. We should on the other hand make it a fight where they have to invest lots and lots of soldiers - more like a hand to hand fight. We just don't let go! The guerrilla war should pull China into the quicksand.

If Chinese soldiers start getting blown up all across Western and Southern China, how long can China keep up! 20 years, 30 years? Would they have enough soldiers entering the armed forces, where each soldier is responsible for feeding eight grandparents, four parents, a wife, and a kid?

How much treasure did the Americans invest in Iraq and Afghanistan? How much treasure would the Chinese be forced to invest in their huge area?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 May 2013 19:36

Let's say we recognize East Turkestan Government-in-Exile! We declare our support to the Freedom of the Uyghurs!

So what happens in Pakistan? Is Pakistan going to crack down on all the Uyghurs? Is the Taliban in Afghanistan going to let Pakistani Army crack down on Uyghurs?

Wouldn't that be strange? Kufr Hindustan supports the rights of the Islamic Uyghurs, and Islamic Republic of Pakistan hunts down these Uyghurs to make swine-eating god-less Chinese happy! Somehow doesn't seem right! But that is the choice we should give to Pakistani Army! Either to work wholeheartedly for the independence of East Turkestan, or to make way for the Pushtun Taliban takeover!

Jihad is not going to be coming to Kashmir, but would be going to East Turkestan, to Xinjiang, and Pakistani Army would be helping with the logistics, whether they like it or not, because the Taliban are going to be holding their swords to their throat!

Not just Pakistan and Afghanistan, but Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan too would be helping out in making East Turkestan independent! Enough of Han colonialism!

Let all the destructive knowledge that the Afghans have won in their fighting against the two superpowers come to good use in fighting against the third superpower - China!

On the other hand, Tibetans can be supplied from both Nepal as well as Myanmar! Uyghurs too can supply Tibetans.

In 2045, after China has been brought to its knees in fighting its wars, East Turkestan and Tibet would finally see Independence and taste the air of Freedom, but till then the Han would bleed!

Let's also not forget that the human rights abuses by the PLA would ensure that that Chinese trade with the apostles of human rights in USA, Canada and Europe would plunge, and China's neighbors in East Asia and Southeast Asia would also turn away!

Let the games begin! There is no time to waste! We have a deadline of 2045!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 May 2013 19:40

Iirc some 15 cops were killed by uighurs in a flare up of violence late april....in kashgar
http://www.latimes.com/news/world/world ... 7507.story

Tsp is already extending covert support to uighur under pressure from saudis.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 May 2013 19:55

We have a precedent of Mahatma Gandhi giving wholehearted support to the Khilafat Movement for Turks in far away Asia Minor. Now the time has come for Indians to similarly give wholehearted support to the Free East Turkestan Movement for Turks (Uyghurs) in near by Central Asia.

The only reason why Turkestan has been deprived of its freedom is because of Pakistani Army not allowing the Afghans to help their neighbors in East Turkestan. Now that the Afghans have kicked out the Americans, it is time the Afghans help the Uyghurs to also kick out the Chinese! The traitor Pakistani Army would this time not dare to intervene in Allah's work!

Allah wants to see East Turkestan as a proud independent country! AoA

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 04 May 2013 20:19

Rajrang garu,

Few years ago I started developing a small model to quantify India's foreign relations and how different nation-states can be scored/ranked based on their actions/inactions.

The model goes like this.

Each country's initial strength is an weighted sum of its area, people, natural resources, trade, GDP and so on.

Say India is country I. Let us take the actions and inactions of nation C.

1/ C did something to I. We Evaluate this transaction w.r.t how much change (+/-) it brings in I's strength.
2/ C does something to country P, who in turn impacts I positively or negatively. For example let us say every unit of gain for P is a 0.3unit loss to I. So we can estimate the gain/loss happened to I from C's every direct or indirect actions.
3/ C's whole relationship to I can change based on how C's actions impact I's national strength. This can turn from +ve to -ve and vice versa.

Thus when C comes to talk to I, the leadership can present this and propose C few alternatives.
1. It can do some thing +ve to I or
2. It can do something -ve to I's opponents
And so on.

This gives both C and I the freedom to act in their national interests while developing a mutually benefiting positive relationship.

Long time ago I presented a hypothetical multi-dimensional interaction metrix between china and India.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 May 2013 20:33

Looking at map, the tsp china border is very hostile and has karakoram highway only.
Afghanistan has a tiny corridor to china called wakhan corridor i think some old era british machination no doubt
Its tajikistan , kyrgzstan and kazakhstan that have huge borders with china
None of them are thickly settled and i am sure the uighurs are already hooked in with afghani bases for back end support via the lawless areas of these three nations.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 May 2013 20:55

Singha ji,

when live feeds from Chinese atrocities on freedom-loving Uyghurs start being shown all across the world, and even MSM in India try to spread the word, I think Chinese would feel quite vulnerable, because once you come into the cross-wires of jihad and terrorism starts, it can become very messy! Today China has assets spread all around the world. Many in Africa where Al-Qaeda runs rampant! The Chinese would have to see online how Al Qaeda just sends some helpless 30 Chinese mine managers to their Chinese Heaven.

That is the kind of war that awaits China! A global war of attrition!

India just needs to take a stand and declare our support to the cause! Kashmir is right next door to us, and not across the Asian continent. We can take care of Kashmir, but lets see them taking care of the Uyghur aspirations. The Uyghurs would find ways to smuggle in the weapons. Otherwise we can have some private airplanes dropping weapons into East Turkestan aka Purulia.

2045 and the clock is ticking!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 May 2013 21:22

Retweet if possible!

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 04 May 2013 21:27

RamaY wrote:Rajrang garu,

Few years ago I started developing a small model to quantify India's foreign relations and how different nation-states can be scored/ranked based on their actions/inactions.

The model goes like this.

Each country's initial strength is an weighted sum of its area, people, natural resources, trade, GDP and so on.

Say India is country I. Let us take the actions and inactions of nation C.

1/ C did something to I. We Evaluate this transaction w.r.t how much change (+/-) it brings in I's strength.
2/ C does something to country P, who in turn impacts I positively or negatively. For example let us say every unit of gain for P is a 0.3unit loss to I. So we can estimate the gain/loss happened to I from C's every direct or indirect actions.
3/ C's whole relationship to I can change based on how C's actions impact I's national strength. This can turn from +ve to -ve and vice versa.

Thus when C comes to talk to I, the leadership can present this and propose C few alternatives.
1. It can do some thing +ve to I or
2. It can do something -ve to I's opponents
And so on.

This gives both C and I the freedom to act in their national interests while developing a mutually benefiting positive relationship.

Long time ago I presented a hypothetical multi-dimensional interaction metrix between china and India.

Rama ji

Interesting - I wonder how one would "validate" such a model?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 May 2013 01:24

The same way you would test a score card.

You build the model using half the data. And use the other half to validate it. And you calibrate it as you go.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 05 May 2013 01:51

I believe Bharat Verma had mentioned that China would attack India in 2012 or so...to utilize the window of opportunity when the airforce numbers will be low. Dont know if this has been discussed.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 05 May 2013 02:36

NEW DELHI: Prospects of external affairs minister Salman Khurshid visiting Beijing next week seem to be receding, with the government veering round the view that the engagement should not take place if Chinese soldiers, squatting 19km inside Indian territory, don't go back.

Sources said the Centre, now fully aligned with Congress's sensitivities about popular resentment against the Chinese muscle-flexing in eastern Ladakh, feels that Khurshid should drop his travel plan for Beijing, scheduled to begin on May 9, even if doing so casts a shadow on the New Delhi visit of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang from May 20.

This means it will require a dramatic de-escalation on the part of the Chinese, the prospect of which looks unlikely, at least now. For, the Chinese have dug in their heels and are defiantly denying that their troops have pitched tents on what India considers its territory.

Toilet: Chinese must leave for Khushid visit to China

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 05 May 2013 03:56

Another angle to this. Paki elections are gonna give birth to another Still Born Sarkar and Qital activities are gonna increase and intensified. Chinese would not like India taking advantage of the opportunity to do Ek Dhaakaa aurr Dho. Karzai have already threatened Poaqs and Massa have appointed the old man expert in handling Mini wars. Question is , are we being misdirected ? Chinese arrest our attention while Poaqy go real dowky and Notch the Boties of each and every living Munafiq there.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 May 2013 04:10

harbans wrote:
NEW DELHI: Prospects of external affairs minister Salman Khurshid visiting Beijing next week seem to be receding, with the government veering round the view that the engagement should not take place if Chinese soldiers, squatting 19km inside Indian territory, don't go back.

Sources said the Centre, now fully aligned with Congress's sensitivities about popular resentment against the Chinese muscle-flexing in eastern Ladakh, feels that Khurshid should drop his travel plan for Beijing, scheduled to begin on May 9, even if doing so casts a shadow on the New Delhi visit of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang from May 20.

This means it will require a dramatic de-escalation on the part of the Chinese, the prospect of which looks unlikely, at least now. For, the Chinese have dug in their heels and are defiantly denying that their troops have pitched tents on what India considers its territory.
Interesting choice of words. Implies there is a difference in the two entities.

Toilet: Chinese must leave for Khushid visit to China

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 05 May 2013 04:30

Ramana Ji, i too was thinking that and maybe it is the NAC that is making the fallback decisions looking at public reaction, while MMS, SK etc do just a bureacratic job. I mentioned earlier that this setup is only reacting to public frustrations. It has lost touch completely, thanks to the sycophantic crowd the Gs have surrounded themselves with.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 05 May 2013 08:53

This is good cop bad cop dramabazi by INC. The game is really common in this region now days. Paki Gov. - TSPA, chinese comm party - PLA. Everyone is safely assuming that the people are stuid and they WILL fall for this.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 05 May 2013 10:20

I think someone in china is trying to undermine premiere Li visit to india. Most new leaders use their first foreign trip to show the intent of the govt.

India should avoid getting sucked into a war even if the Chinese don't leave immediately. We should choose the flashpoint at time and place of our choosing. there is 100s of thousands sqkm of territory available to capture, pick a place and drive in the night at not too distant future.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 May 2013 11:38

1962 war.
The book, In Fear of China, appeared in 1968.
http://www.gregoryclark.net/redif.html

I decided to send up a submission to my superiors saying that Indian claims of unprovoked aggression from China were not quite as strong as most believed, and that Canberra's rushed offer to supply weapons should at least be conditional on a New Delhi promise to negotiate the frontier in a more serious manner.

My two immediate superiors accepted the submission, despite their normally rather hawkish views. But it came to a dead stop in the hands of the then division head, David Anderson, later to be Australia's ambassador to Saigon.

In the margin he had scrawled: "I fail to see that it is not in the Australian interest to see the Chinese and the Indians at each other's throats."

For me, this was the ultimate example of the ugly Cold War realpolitik that was to lead eventually to the mess that Anderson was to confront later in Vietnam. From then on there was little more I could do, other than contemplate cynically Canberra's puzzlement when the Chinese 'aggressors' failed to press on to the Bay of Bengal and in fact returned to precisely where they had started, without even trying to seize some of the NEFA.

Later, I resigned from external affairs in 1965 and became involved in the anti-Vietnam War protest movement. At the time the myth of an 'expansionist' China, with heavy emphasis on the 1962 Sino-Indian dispute, was being used constantly to justify Western, including Australian, intervention in Indochina. The only answer, it seemed, was for me to try to write a detailed book on China, pointing out the not unreasonable nature of Beijing's foreign policies.

Looks like lot of world leadership wanted a war in which PRC can be blamed and their war in Vietnam could be escalated.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 05 May 2013 11:48

RajeshA wrote:...
So we have the following options (others can suggest more):

[*] The President Pranab Mukherjee dismisses this government, takes full executive control and sets up an interim government of technocrats and experienced armed forces chiefs to take care of the Chinese invasion.
....

Just wanted to point out that the current Government IS headed by a "technocrat", Shri MMS. Though most policy is broadly based on the Congress line of thought, MMS has been given a free hand to shape the foreign policy. This is probably because most voters don't think it affects them and don't give a rats ass about it. Only when incidents like this occur that the public scrutiny falls on it. Its only then the Congress makes noises to get the "technocratic" Government to change its line. After all Congressmen like any politicians are slaves to public opinion. I think even if Rahul Baba was the PM he would have shown more balls or at least play the victim.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 May 2013 13:21

4 locations along LAC identified as vulnerable by the army. Vigil have stepped up. But again if a PLA platoon shows up will they fire? Probably not. Same in the Depsang plains as well.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 May 2013 14:38

Forget our well-known def. experts.We on BR collectively have been warning everyone ever since China suddenly without any warning opened their Ar.Pradesh gambit,tried to prevent HH the Dalai Lama from going there.There are lessons to be learnt from this.When was it done? After the Tibetan rail link was completed and China had the capability to move rapidly large numbers of troops and eqpt. by rail.

So why are they trying our patience now? We have woken up very late,but nevertheless woken up groggily.We are trying to improve our infrastructure asap,but progress is slow,except for operationalising our old airstrips such as DBO.This has alarmed the PRC,who see this as a short-cut method by India to save the situ should china launch a surprise attack.Therefore,the creeping border,closer to our key posts/airstrips.That is also coincides in an election year where the most venal and disgraced Indian govt. ever is on itss last legs,gives the PRC a huge opportunity to either across the table or on the ground,achieve major gains from India,diplomatic,economic and military.The Congress is desperate to achieve some foreign policy successes,with Pak to capture the Muslim "votebank" and with China,to assuage the Left should they require their support in a UPA-3.

We right now are in no position to fight a war with china short or long.If attacked we will certainly fight like tigers and throw everything at the PRC and do as much damage as we can,but as we did in '71,we must have patience and prepare well,launch our counter offensive in late autumn/early winter,when winter snows prevent China from reinforcing their troops en masse.true,the Chinese can do likewise,but they would've lost the element of surprise.We have 4-6 months with which to beef up forces,the infrastructure-as much as poss.,acquire war material (esp. ammo) and weapon systems for all three services,long overdue like mountain artillery,more med. and light helos,etc. For the IA,it would be a priority for eqpt. for mountain warfare,but also 24 hr. production of our tactical missiles,as we can expect the PRC to launch sev. hundred of their tactical missiles too.

The war will be fought in all three dimensions + space.The IN has the best opportunity to severely damage Chinese merchant shipping ,esp. their petro tankers exiting the Gulf.Without bases in the IOR from which they can use for their naval strike aircraft,their merchant vessels and surface ships would be sitting ducks forTibet by default as HH the DL is also temporal (until recently) the IN's combined forces.The greatest threat is going to be from PLAN subs,which in anticipation of a crisis have according to the reports already conducted dozens of sub ops around our coastline.

Diplomatically,we should cancel all visits by us and from the PRC.Visas should be slowed down and ALL visas for Chinese stapled .A well-publicised economic,diplomatic and military team should go immediately to Taiwan.Over a year ago,members might remember my idea to make HH the DL President of India,which would automatically bestow upon us sovereignity of Tibet.Now that he has divested himself of that title/responsibility,the Tibetan PM-in-exile should be given a very high Indian honour.We need to also raise a large Tibetan diaspora army,as in the long run,the liberation of Tibet is essential,when the Chinese state collapses due to its innate internal contradictions.The boycotting of Chinese goods,etc. has already been made elsewhere as a simultaneous slap in the PRC's face.If we do not stand firm right now,it is going to be a real "Chinese takeaway" of Indian territory with incalcuable loss of face and prestige internationally.

In Chinese,the word for "crisis" is also one of opportunity.We can win this crisis diplomatically without firing a shot! The threat of recognising Taiwan,challenging Chinese sovereignity over Tibet ,establishing defence relationships with anti-Chinese states in Asia and kicking all Chinese and their goods out of India would be a massive blow to the PRC,to hard to swallow.will the Chinese risk such a diplomatic defeat? I think not.

In addition,it won't cost us much-in fact nothing! We have a huge trade deficit with China,our cottage and small-scale industries have been savaged by cheap Chinese goods,apart from our manufacturers of heavy eqpt.,elec. goods,etc.It will be a spur to Indian industry in fact to replace Chinese products which are destroying Indian industry,as they have done across the globe.

Lastly but not least,is the 24X& production of N-warheads and delivery systems,China specific.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 05 May 2013 16:05

Philip wrote:Forget our well-known def. experts.We on BR collectively have been warning everyone ever since China suddenly without any warning opened their Ar.Pradesh gambit,tried to prevent HH the Dalai Lama from going there.There are lessons to be learnt from this.When was it done? After the Tibetan rail link was completed and China had the capability to move rapidly large numbers of troops and eqpt. by rail.

So why are they trying our patience now? We have woken up very late,but nevertheless woken up groggily.We are trying to improve our infrastructure asap,but progress is slow,except for operationalising our old airstrips such as DBO.This has alarmed the PRC,who see this as a short-cut method by India to save the situ should china launch a surprise attack.Therefore,the creeping border,closer to our key posts/airstrips.That is also coincides in an election year where the most venal and disgraced Indian govt. ever is on itss last legs,gives the PRC a huge opportunity to either across the table or on the ground,achieve major gains from India,diplomatic,economic and military.The Congress is desperate to achieve some foreign policy successes,with Pak to capture the Muslim "votebank" and with China,to assuage the Left should they require their support in a UPA-3.

We right now are in no position to fight a war with china short or long.If attacked we will certainly fight like tigers and throw everything at the PRC and do as much damage as we can,but as we did in '71,we must have patience and prepare well,launch our counter offensive in late autumn/early winter,when winter snows prevent China from reinforcing their troops en masse.true,the Chinese can do likewise,but they would've lost the element of surprise.We have 4-6 months with which to beef up forces,the infrastructure-as much as poss.,acquire war material (esp. ammo) and weapon systems for all three services,long overdue like mountain artillery,more med. and light helos,etc. For the IA,it would be a priority for eqpt. for mountain warfare,but also 24 hr. production of our tactical missiles,as we can expect the PRC to launch sev. hundred of their tactical missiles too.

The war will be fought in all three dimensions + space.The IN has the best opportunity to severely damage Chinese merchant shipping ,esp. their petro tankers exiting the Gulf.Without bases in the IOR from which they can use for their naval strike aircraft,their merchant vessels and surface ships would be sitting ducks forTibet by default as HH the DL is also temporal (until recently) the IN's combined forces.The greatest threat is going to be from PLAN subs,which in anticipation of a crisis have according to the reports already conducted dozens of sub ops around our coastline.

Diplomatically,we should cancel all visits by us and from the PRC.Visas should be slowed down and ALL visas for Chinese stapled .A well-publicised economic,diplomatic and military team should go immediately to Taiwan.Over a year ago,members might remember my idea to make HH the DL President of India,which would automatically bestow upon us sovereignity of Tibet.Now that he has divested himself of that title/responsibility,the Tibetan PM-in-exile should be given a very high Indian honour.We need to also raise a large Tibetan diaspora army,as in the long run,the liberation of Tibet is essential,when the Chinese state collapses due to its innate internal contradictions.The boycotting of Chinese goods,etc. has already been made elsewhere as a simultaneous slap in the PRC's face.If we do not stand firm right now,it is going to be a real "Chinese takeaway" of Indian territory with incalcuable loss of face and prestige internationally.

In Chinese,the word for "crisis" is also one of opportunity.We can win this crisis diplomatically without firing a shot! The threat of recognising Taiwan,challenging Chinese sovereignity over Tibet ,establishing defence relationships with anti-Chinese states in Asia and kicking all Chinese and their goods out of India would be a massive blow to the PRC,to hard to swallow.will the Chinese risk such a diplomatic defeat? I think not.

In addition,it won't cost us much-in fact nothing! We have a huge trade deficit with China,our cottage and small-scale industries have been savaged by cheap Chinese goods,apart from our manufacturers of heavy eqpt.,elec. goods,etc.It will be a spur to Indian industry in fact to replace Chinese products which are destroying Indian industry,as they have done across the globe.

Lastly but not least,is the 24X& production of N-warheads and delivery systems,China specific.

Great suggestions. China needs to be given CONSEQUENCES for their actions (misbehavior) - both immediate and long term.

The long term ones should include new China specific mountain divisions, artillery, new aircraft squadrons for the western and middle sectors as well as start making noises (and actual plans) for teaming up with the US and Japan to develop an "Asian NATO." Unfortunately, India has a super power neighbor whose intentions appear sinister. It will be difficult for India to handle this task alone. Such a build-up can somehow include guarantees to the neighbor to the West that these new capabilities will not be used against them - perhaps underwritten by the US for credibility.

In the past India has sometimes failed to give consequences. A glaring example is China giving nuclear and missile capabilities to the western neighbor so they can kill millions of Indians within hours. India should have responded in kind and enhanced similar capabilities for Vietnam, Taiwan et al.

The latest may be the most serious since 1962. Both in 1967 (Sikkim) and 1986 (Tawang), India's army and leaders (Mrs. Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi) responded with alacrity. Relative peace ensued for a generation after each such incident. This time China's economic might and infrastructure in Tibet are much stronger. However, this should be offset by increased Indian military strength (thanks to AKA), global opinion (US, pacific countries, Europe) should be on India's side and importantly, the US has enough influence in Pakistan to dissuade them from explicitly joining China in the short term.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 May 2013 16:31

rajrang wrote:as well as start making noises (and actual plans) for teaming up with the US and Japan to develop an "Asian NATO."

<snip>

This time China's economic might and infrastructure in Tibet are much stronger. However, this should be offset by increased Indian military strength (thanks to AKA), global opinion (US, pacific countries, Europe) should be on India's side and importantly, the US has enough influence in Pakistan to dissuade them from explicitly joining China in the short term.

my response is here.