India's Border Security with China and Pakistan-2020

vimal · Post by **vimal** » 05 Sep 2020 01:42

Only solution is to redraw the border as it was on January 1st 1962.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 05 Sep 2020 01:52

williams wrote: There are some interesting tidbits about what happened to these areas in 1962.

https://usiofindia.org/publication/usi-journal/battle-of-eastern-ladakh-1962-sino-indian-conflict-2/

Bottom line: Chacha's Himalayan blunder is one of the worst strategic miscalculation of our modern times.

This is a great source. Provides a detailed examination of the pattern of deployments back then and why some of them were wrong.

Also during the battles, the CHinese had captured, Magar Hill and Gurung Hill along with Rezang La, but withdrew from all three afterwards. But they did not withdraw from Black top and Helmet top. The author actually criticizes our decision not to occupy these features which would have allowed us to better observe and interdict Chinese movements choosing instead to occupy the lower Rezang La and Gurung Hill instead which were overrun. As per Nitin Gokhale and Vishnu Black Top and Helmet top are still occupied by the Chinese. We have managed to occupy some surrounding features which give us line of sight to their movements and which seems to have majorly irritated them now.

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 05 Sep 2020 01:54

V_Raman wrote:We have been asking for status quo ante - we cant say no if that is proposed.

Status quo ante applies to Chinese positions. Not the strategic realignment of our troops on India's side of LAC (including the realignments that happened in over the past several days.)

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 05 Sep 2020 01:57

vimal wrote:Only solution is to redraw the border as it was on January 1st 1962.

Are you sure?

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 05 Sep 2020 02:06

the only solution is to get back Hari Singh's princely state which he acceded to the union of india

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 05 Sep 2020 02:27

Dr Shiv's analysis is that from Black top & Helmet top, Chinese spotters can direct artillery fire from the gun batteries that are located north/east of Sirijap to target Chusul and surrounding Indian facilities going right over and across Pagnong Tso. But that option is gone now. They can't do that from their positions on the banks of Spanggur since the ridge lines between that and Chushul are also occupied by IA.

IA's recent moves have effectively rendered their tanks & artillery blind, plus any move they make will be spotted by IA on the ridges which can direct hell fire to rain upon them.

PLA has to send their inadequately-fit, pawn-fed and demoralised troops up steep slopes in waves until IA forces on the top run out of ammo to change the new "status quo". We can imagine how that will turn out. Makes for gory, shameful press at home and abroad.

Else call CAS from PLAAF to precision bomb ridge lines held by IA (like we learnt to do in Kargil)- which they have zero experience in doing, plus all the disadvantages of low payload capacity, Indian Air Defense systems and fighter response are a big unknown factor.

Missiles are even more useless in this terrain, and will squarely make China the unjustifiable aggressor and invite US direct intervention first, sanctions next, flight of business forever. Losing Xinjian & Tibet is a distinct possibility. Next revolt in Inner Mongolia. PRC disintegration will follow.

Doing something aggressive elsewhere on land or sea is not going to change the situation in Ladhak, it will only create an even larger front with greater imponderables to manage with a PLA thats inept and lacking courage.

Net net, this means months of build-up has only brought them to a dead end. Not counting economic cost, diplomatic opprobrium and tarnished image.

Just like a small pin stuck in the right place can bring in a gigantic machine to a grinding halt, mighty PLA is stalled right now.

One can understand with sympathy why the Chinese are majorly irritated.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 05 Sep 2020 02:48

amar_p wrote:*** LOSER COMPROMISE ALERT ***
...

You forgot to add the most important LOSER COMPROMISE: return to status quo ante April / May also means un-banning their apps and dropping the restrictions on Chinese companies bidding on GoI contracts.

darshan · Post by **darshan** » 05 Sep 2020 02:55

There were many more chinese angles that were brought to light like havala, gambling, shell companies, drugs, etc. Stuff that govt at some point needs to explain about why the govt was looking the other way. Govt agencies going after anyone with lot of chinese connections would have unearthed many many trails all this time irrespective of border issues. For example, film industries cashing in on sudden love for Indian films in china.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 05 Sep 2020 03:08

Kakarat wrote:https://twitter.com/DefenceMinIndia/sta ... 4633291777

Raksha Mantri Shri @rajnathsingh meeting the Chinese Defence Minister, General Fenghe in Moscow.

The Chinese Defence Minister is not like our RM. He is a munna, not a member of politburo. A breakthrough at his level seems a bit far fetched.

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 05 Sep 2020 03:41

If there are talks now, what should be India's demands?

In my view these should be our starting set of positions/claims:

Position 1: India claims the entire part surrounded by the red line as claimed by former princely state of J&K with unconditionally and entirety acceded to India in 1947, as shown in the picture below. Any territory currently claimed/held by China must be unconditionally and perpetually ceded to India.

Position 1bis: Some give in Ladhak is possible against China ceding some areas we want around and including Mt Kailash & Mansarovar, Gosthan etc.

Position 2 : If China wants to continue using of G219 running through Aksai-Hind (they will lose ownership since an illegal construction in a disputed territory ultimately falls under the rightful owner),
A. They have to permanently accept Arunachal as part of India and renounce all claims there.
B. Pay transit & toll fees to India
C. No military vehicles/equipment/troops will be allowed to transit.
D. Settle borders with India & Bhutan in Dhoklam/Sikkim.

Position 3: The border demarcation shall be carried out as per above, as a line connecting a series of GPS coordinates spaced 100m apart representing the entire length of the border, signed by both parties as rightful sovereign owners. 2 kms zone on either side of the border will be a DMZ with static/unarmed drone surveillance authorised up to the limit of respective sides.

Position 4. Not enter into any agreements with any other country involving access, use or ownership of territory claimed by India, for ex: in Gilgit-Baltistan or Nepal, BD, Myanmar etc. Existing such agreements will be deemed void therefore unenforceable from India's point of view.

Position 5: For the unprovoked aggression on India starting 01 May 2020 until the date the accord is signed, China must pay 100 (ONE HUNDRED) Million USD per day as reparations to Govt of India, not withstanding other legal recourse by independent parties.

I left out Tibet because its the responsibility of a people to raise up for themselves and their freedom. India can and will help like we helped BD, but we can't offer them their country on a platter. They won't be able to keep it.

We should negotiate the above 5 items as a package deal. While some margin of adjustment may exist within each item, all 5 must be agreed to for the deal to stand.

Else no deal. India is free to decide our next course of action at a time and place and in a manner of our choice.

mmasand · Post by **mmasand** » 05 Sep 2020 03:43

China's Foreign Ministry doesn't seem to have taken too well to the comments of Deputy Secretary of State, Stephen Beigun, in respect to a 'belligerent and provocative' China. He quotes several instances from the past 5 years, and goes onto irk the PLA by making direct references to the QUAD 'taming' them besides economic measures such as sanctions, decoupling of manufacturing. At this point they're literally begging the US to keep out of what they see as a bilateral issue (no surprises there as they hate groupings). The statements were made at the USISPF summit to Amb. Rich Verma.

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 05 Sep 2020 03:45

KLNMurthy wrote:
amar_p wrote:*** LOSER COMPROMISE ALERT ***
...
You forgot to add the most important LOSER COMPROMISE: return to status quo ante April / May also means un-banning their apps and dropping the restrictions on Chinese companies bidding on GoI contracts.

Murthy garu, its covered in my post as point 5 under the umbrella of "economic measures" though not explicitly like apps, contracts etc.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 05 Sep 2020 04:14

amar_p, where is that map from? If you look closely it shows LAC passing through finger 4 of Pangong Tso like the Chinese claim and not Finger 8. I think it is showing the Chinese claim line as LAC.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Sep 2020 04:24

amar_p

You think MAD are born yesterday. Till now since 2014 they handled Depsang, Dokhlam, Wuhan, Mammallapuram, RCEP, Huawei, Galwan, and now South Pangong Tso.

MAD pulled off Siachen in Ladakh. Chinese bases in Rutok and Ngari are at risk and G219.

You think we will hand over everything?

I need not tell you about all the economy measures taken.
MAD bans 118 apps and Tencent valuations dropped $14B.

Need put things in perespective.

We want rules based architecture or else it's big fish eat little fish.

Nothing else.

Jaishankar will walk out of UN if it doesn't put FATF.

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 05 Sep 2020 04:27

Its from wikipedia, Askai Chin page, the image is hosted on Wikimedia. Not sure who is the author/source. I used it for the big picture.

You're right about LAC passing thru Finger 4. Even google maps has the same alignment with LAC passing thru Finger 4, but has another dotted line passing much east of Sirijap which is pre-1962 border, corresponding to the red line in wiki map.

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 05 Sep 2020 04:43

Ramana garu,
I agree the gains made by MAD are several and incremental, and like a winner having a run, we are at the high stakes table now.

My apprehension comes not from our leaders but the rest of the establishment. To a large extent MAD are able to impose their decisions and somehow pull all others along to follow through and execute.

This is new territory, and will test everyone since what we do now will set our course for many years to come.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 05 Sep 2020 04:50

Totally agree with Ramana Garu, MAD are far more cleverer than we give them credit for and added to that they now have a decently equipped Armed force behind them. Perpetual Naysayers doubting NaMo you probably should keep quiet now, my read of the situation is that the situation is not going to be resolved anytime soon and the PLA/CCP will pull the trigger and then its anyone's guess what will happen next, the world might probably see two new nation states Tibet and Xinjiang added.

Not that it matters but there is one bill introduced in the US congress that calls for recognition of Tibet, in a certain geo-political strategic sense it will help US to have an independent Tibet which is friendly to the US. A Tibet that will allow US and Indian forces to be positioned there is a Cuba'esque situation for PRC and of course, they cant mess around much after that. From the US perspective this is the missing pearl in their string comprising Japan, Taiwan to keep PRC in its place and curb its aspirations to be a challenger to the super power title.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Sep 2020 05:16

amar_p,
They are the establishment.
And its new territory agreed.

We are far away. Just watch what vidhaata has in play for us through them.

One thing you need to keep in mind. There are tanks and artillery guns with shells loaded facing each other with inn 6km. In other words like 1914 Guns of August.
Both Xi and NaMo realize once the first shell lands its different ball game.
BTW a recent USNI Proceedings had an article on emerging scenarios and most conspicuous by absence is an India-China standoff. Yet that is what is going on since May 2020.

What do you think is going on!

suryag, India doesn't want to be new Gungadin no more.

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 05 Sep 2020 05:18

I hope you & Ramana are right about MAD. May be I'm not as confident sitting where I am, a bit away from the action.

I must admit being far less confident about Tibet becoming something one day, it becoming a new Cuba against PRC seems very far fetched at this point. We can reassess post Nov elections.

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 05 Sep 2020 05:35

I must confess that at the very beginning of the Galwan clashes, as reports poured in, NaMo appeared visibly distraught in a few televised appearances, and I was shaken. I could see the weight of the situation in his face, in his demeanour. Since then, he has brought the situation to a different level now, writing the script as events unfold.

May be he is infallible, may be not, time will tell. But there are no better hands to hold the nation right now, and in this epoch.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 05 Sep 2020 07:02

amar_p wrote:I hope you & Ramana are right about MAD. May be I'm not as confident sitting where I am, a bit away from the action.

I must admit being far less confident about Tibet becoming something one day, it becoming a new Cuba against PRC seems very far fetched at this point. We can reassess post Nov elections.

Maybe so, but remember it doesn’t just matter what you have in mind and desire to say. It also matters that you understand who reads these forums too . I hope you’re also thinking carefully about what others who read the forum think of what you say, from their points of view .

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 05 Sep 2020 07:12

Kakarat wrote:
vimal wrote:Only solution is to redraw the border as it was on January 1st 1962.
Are you sure?

is this image usable elsewhere? I mean what link needs to be give as a reference if used in any other public space. As it is wikimedia no problem?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 05 Sep 2020 08:07

Muppalla, the above map posted by Kakarat has been on the web for ages. I think it came from an article in the Frontline about two decades back. Remember to have seen it then. Not sure if it had beenavailable even before.

A few points about this map.

The Laktsang is a spur of the Karakoram that joins a spur of the Kunlun further south. One proposal was to use the watershed of the Laktsang range as the dividing point between India & Sinkiang. The northern slopes and beyond (the Soda Plains) go to Sinkiang and the southern slopes (the Lingzithang Plains) go to India.

Of course, that's not a solution. But, the British offered this to the Qing Emperor as the British-Qing relationship warmed at one point of time. But, as the Qing Emperor began to lose his grip and the USSR's efforts in Sinkiang intensified (it was holding roughly half of that area), the British went back to the Johnson-Ardagh Line in order to have more buffer. This is what India has also always claimed. It uses the KunLun watershed, not the Karakoram watershed (or its spur's watershed). In 1963, Pakistan accepted the Karakoram watershed principle and conceded Shaksgam which always belonged to GB.

One more point. The explanation says that the McCartney-McDonald line was informally accepted by China until 1959. Not true. The Chinese never accepted any boundary anywhere because ambiguity would give them opportunity to coerce or negotiate in future as the situation demanded. The British presented their proposal, which itself was done at the behest of the Chinese, but as usual the Chinese neither confirmed nor denied.

m_saini · Post by **m_saini** » 05 Sep 2020 08:20

Muppalla wrote: is this image usable elsewhere? I mean what link needs to be give as a reference if used in any other public space. As it is wikimedia no problem?

That image shows up in a couple of wiki articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indi ... er_dispute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macartney ... onald_Line

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardagh%E2 ... hnson_Line

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alastair_Lamb

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

Seems to be submitted by a user named "Hogweard" on wiki on 17th July, 2020

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... on=history

Anoop · Post by **Anoop** » 05 Sep 2020 09:22

https://youtu.be/4aWK_kc44yQ

Nitin Gokhake is also confirming that 2500 to 3000 troops are on heights along a 20 km frontage. So Sudhi Ranjan Sen was right. Also, shows the real difficulty of remaining at those heights, where even water needs to be carried up. My heartfelt gratitude to our jawans and officers for rheir daily sacrifices and prayers for their health and wellbeing.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 05 Sep 2020 09:50

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-ne ... cMnxI.html
Rajnath Singh meets Chinese defence minister, calls for bringing ties ‘back on right track’
According to China’s official news agency, Xinhua, Wei told Singh that the responsibility of the ongoing tension lies entirely with India – an allegation that New Delhi has brushed off repeatedly.
Sutirtho Patranobis, Sep 05, 2020.
Defence minister Rajnath Singh on Friday pushed for the restoration of status quo ante at all friction points along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh and called for disengagement of troops in an expeditious way during the much-expected meeting with his Chinese counterpart General Wei Fenghe in Moscow. The meeting between Singh and Wei, on the sidelines of the defence ministers’ meet at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), was the first high-level political face-to-face meeting between India and China since the border row erupted along the LAC in eastern Ladakh in early May.
A Press Trust of India report from Moscow said at the meeting on Friday, which lasted for more than two hours, the Indian delegation strongly objected to Chinese army’s fresh attempts to change the status quo in the southern bank of Pangong lake and insisted on the resolution of the standoff through talks. According to China’s official news agency, Xinhua, Wei told Singh that the responsibility of the ongoing tension lies entirely with India – an allegation that New Delhi has brushed off repeatedly, saying that the border aggression has actually been shown by the troops of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
The same Xinhua report in Mandarin from Moscow quoted Singh as saying that India hoped that two sides will “…adopt a responsible attitude, fully disengage front-line forces as soon as possible, avoid taking measures that may escalate or complicate the situation, and avoid turning differences into disputes so as to bring bilateral military relations back to the right track as soon as possible.”
External affairs minister S Jaishankar and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval have previously held separate telephonic talks with Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi to resolve the standoff.
On Thursday, New Delhi squarely blamed Beijing for the tensions along the LAC over the past four months and said the only way forward was through negotiations – reflecting the impasse created by fresh attempts by Beijing to alter the status quo along the disputed border over the weekend.
At the meeting, Wei said that recently the relations between the two countries and the two militaries have been seriously affected by the border issue and that it was very important for the two defence ministers to have a face-to-face and candid exchange of views on relevant issues, according to Xinhua. Wei added that the “cause and truth” of the current tension on the China-India border are very clear, and the responsibility lies entirely with the Indian side. “Not an inch of China’s territory should be lost. The Chinese military has the resolve, capability and confidence to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the Chinese defence minister said.
......
Gautam
India is guilty. China is great. Why have this meeting at all? Is the lizard just going through motion of meeting and discussion, the decision to start a war has been already taken? Their official position is that is a war they will win, and this will make everyone back off from South China Sea.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 05 Sep 2020 10:07

A section of indian media are reporting that RM asked for disengagement and restoration of status quo ante. There are no direct quotes but this is the interpretation. Seems like a copy paste job across several newspapers. Hopefully this is only an interpretation and not exactly what India conveyed to China. If it is indeed the case then GOI is looking to go back to pre April statusand take the easy way out.

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 05 Sep 2020 10:21

China has a road up to Black top. How are the 3000 odd Indian soldiers spread over multiple peaks going to be kept supplied?

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 05 Sep 2020 10:26

TOI reporting that ITBP has now reinforced SFF in the Kala Top area

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 941669.cms

Let's add a couple of passes to our knowledge - Phurchuk La pass is the one from where our soldiers seem to be getting access to Kala Top, Yellow Bump (yes, there's that too!) and Chuti Chanla which, going by the suffix la, seems to be the pass through which the Chinese used to access South Bank of Pangong Tso:

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 05 Sep 2020 10:30

https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis ... 2020-09-04
Chinese Chatter: What strategic experts from the other side think about Ladakh standoff
While the latest conflict between Indian and Chinese troops on the southern bank of Pangong Tso in Ladakh has raised concerns over escalation at the LAC, a perspective on how the Chinese strategic community has been analysing the situation is rather enlightening.
Antara Ghosal Singh, New Delhi, September 4, 2020
At a time when the latest conflict between Indian and Chinese troops on the southern bank of Pangong Tso in Ladakh has raised concerns over escalation at the Line of Actual Control (LAC), a perspective on how the Chinese strategic community has been analysing the situation is rather enlightening.
The development has created quite a buzz among Chinese strategic circles. While discussing the development, the key argument among Chinese strategists is that the recent border incident is India's bid to add bargaining chip at the negotiation table.
Qian Feng, director of the research department of the National Strategy Institute at Tsinghua University in Beijing, has been quoted in the Chinese media, saying that the Indian side is unhappy about the progress in negotiations and believes that China has not accepted its conditions. Therefore, to put pressure on China at the next round of negotiation, it has made an attempt to open up new confrontation points. Not just that, the Chinese side also noted with concern the news about India sending warships to the South China Sea.
In troubled waters
A Chinese military expert Li Jie argued in Huanqiushibao (the Chinese version of the Global Times) that by such actions the Indian side is sending a strong signal that if an uncontrollable conflict occurs on the land between China and India on the border, it may resort to retaliation against China at sea by targeting China's oil and gas transport vessels, "thereby, urging the Chinese government to take proper countermeasures to deal with the disturbances at the sea."
The second key argument is that India is working at the behest of the United States. Some Chinese strategists have been warning of late of a possible military showdown between Beijing and Washington before the upcoming US elections in November, and many see the present China-India tension as an extension to the worsening of ties between China and the United States.
.......
'Face-saving strategy'
In the same vein it is now being argued that by publicly stating that "India has successfully prevented China's intention to unilaterally change the local status quo," and highlighting "Indian army's victory in this conflict", an already "stretched-out India" (due to epidemic, sluggish economy and other reasons) has been clearing its way for a face-saving exit.
But, what has left many in China fuming is India's "audacity" to carry out a "pre-emptive" strike against China, and that the Indian army personnel waved the Tibetan "Snow Mountain Lion Flag" at the confrontation site, the video of which went viral in the Chinese social media. Chinese social media space has been buzzing with calls for an "appropriate counterattack".
Certain Chinese hardliners argue that if China does not respond forcefully to India's "misadventures", it may even seek to occupy the entire Aksai Chin, while on the other hand, the United States, Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines and other countries will further up the ante against China. Therefore, a counterattack by force against India at this point is necessary, as it will not only be a counterattack, but also a way of proving the world of China's great power credentials, mentions an article in the Utopia, a Chinese internet forum with strong Maoist and Communist ideological affiliation.
.....
Gautam

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 05 Sep 2020 10:42

amar_p wrote:*** LOSER COMPROMISE ALERT ***

So we occupy a few ridge lines and immediately the mighty PLA backs off its aggression, their FM starts making conciliatory noises, and their Defense Min "requests" an unscheduled meeting in Moscow and the whole country is smiling saying "we have taught the Chinese a lesson and they have now softened and ready to compromise on the border" and getting back to peace nicking in double time.

China/CCP has many ways of leading us down the garden path at the end of which we'll be holding lemons, if we lose sight of our long term goals and national interest:

LOSER COMPROMISE 1:
- China will first negotiate that both parties should go back to status quo ante before May 2020. They have made marginal territory gains which have little tactical or strategic significance and are now willing to give that up. In exchange, India must give up the significant tactical and strategic positions we have occupied over the past week. India was asking for status quo ante all these weeks after all, no ? {Only real scenario but unlikely because we are on our side of the LAC}

LOSER COMPROMISE 2:
- For years China has been pointedly ignoring Indian statements that the border needs to be settled. When they built G219 through Aksai-Hind occupied since 1962 there wasn't as much as a whimper from India. So who the frik cares, right ? But now there is OBOR and CPEC which is vulnerable to India's nationalist Govt's ambitions, India's Home Min is on record saying we'll take back Aksai-Hind one day. Converting J&K and Ladhak into UTs under direct Central Govt control is the first step as CCP sees it. So rake up tensions and agree for border talks now.

If India agrees, these talks will go on for years, heck for few 100m of incursions, Commander level talks have been stretched for 4 months. For a 4000Km long border, we can spend 4 generations. Meanwhile G219 will be 8 laned, Han citizen will have replaced the last Tibetan, OBOR, CPEC and string of pearls through India's backside will be a reality. {As if India was planning on taking the Chinese on Tibet. OBOR, CPEC, String of pearls has nothing to do with border settlement. The progress of lack of it on OBOR, etc will depend on the relative strength of India vs Chinese economy.}

LOSER COMPROMISE 3:
- China will be OK to give and take bits of land here and there along the LAC, wherever parties agree on whatever perceptions they have. In every case where the Indian perception of LAC meets that of the Chinese, BUT IS BELOW THE LIMIT LINES OF THE J&K TERRITORY AS CEDED BY RAJA HARISHINGH I 1947, the Chinese will haggle for a while and finally agree. Thus LEGALISING THE ANNEXURE OF AKSAI-HIND IN 1962. {Any future border settlement will involve give and take. Modi's effort all along including his summit with Xi has been to maintain STATUS QUO! That should tell us something.}

Added later:
In the same way, India will have to agree to no longer stake any claim to the terrority illegally occupied by Pak and ceded to China, and of course agree to compromise on Gilgit-Baltistan with Pak, essentially agreeing to convert LOC to IB. This is more than what bankrupt failed state of Pakistan can ever hope to achieve in the next 2 decades. Thus China will take care of its slave, and whatever belongs to the slave really belongs to the master, right? {Yeh .. India will agree to give up PoK, etc for a getting a temporary truce on the LAC! This makes the GOI look like a greenhorn in diplomacy.}

LOSER COMPROMISE 4:
- China can very well take the position that what ever rules or principles are applied in "settling" the borders in Ladhak will not be applicable elsewhere. So do not dream of settling borders near Sikkim, Bhutan or Arunachal on the same lines. The Chinese will therefore reserve the right to salami slice elsewhere, and adopt other tactics like insurgency, separatism, intimidation (of Bhutan), coercion (Nepal, BD) etc which won't work in Ladhak. {What does one say to this point! There is NO talk of settling the border in Ladakh. This is just about getting back to status quo with a few adjustment to the LAC. NO ONE is dreaming of settling the border in Ladakh or Sikkim or Arunanchal. There is no grand bargain in the offering here. The Chinese will continue to be Chinese.}

LOSER COMPROMISE 5:
- Upon agreeing for talks, China will want India to roll back all economic measures taken up so far against it, reopen the doors for Huawei etc, and agree to negotiate a trade agreement if not reconsider ARCEP. India needs to show it's "good faith". So that the CCP can stem the trickle of global businesses flowing out of China ASAP, before they become rivers and torrents. {Now things are absurd! We have trumped the Chinese gambit on Pangang tso. So while we might agree to return to status quo on the LAC the Chinese are in no position to demand anything 'cause the present configuration favors India. We can live with the NEW status quo at the LAC.}

LOSER COMPROMISE 6:
Indian establishment still salivates for that doggone UNSC seat. China will promise a "balanced attitude towards reasonable consideration of India's aspirations" for this unobtanium we obsess about like some deep rooted sexual fantasy that vaporises all caution, and deflate the newly discovered "Indian SPINE" for a decade or so. {This assumes that Indian diplomats are greenhorns. Indian wanted status quo on the LAC. If status quo & peace is restored along with support for India's aspirations of the UNSC, it is most welcome. What has that got to do with the "Indian SPINE".}

We are facing a 21st century Hindi-China bhai-bhai redux.

Modi & Co.s real deshbhakti and 70mm chests will be put to test when they face these tempting options which will seemingly allow the current Gov to claim a political, diplomatic and military victory over China but will ultimately result in a sell out of India's integrity and sovereignty.

We can't allow that to happen.

1. India all along has wanted status quo and peace on the LAC and it is a good thing. If talks lead to that then we should welcome that too. India is NOT going to show some "Indian SPINE" and march into Aksai Chin or Tibet. That was never on the table in the past, now or in the "immediate" future.

2. Indian occupation on heights on the Indian side of the LAC is India's business just like building Infra on the Indian side of the LAC is our business. There might be a some re-adjustment but not much.

3. There is no grand bargain in the offering that will settle the border once for all. The Chinese will remain Chinese and will do what they consider in their national interest and we will do what we consider in our national interest.

4. The Chinese attitude to India will not change till we lag them economically. Their interference in our neighborhood will continue till they see can fund it. We will have to up our game diplomatically.

5. Whether we end up with old status quo or new, the economics steps that have been taken against Chinese are unlikely to be rolled back. The Chinese have punched Modi in the face when he was offering them peace and friendship. Modi will have learned his lessons no matter what his initial play was. One thing that can be stated about Modi is that he is a fast learner.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 05 Sep 2020 10:44

Y I Patel wrote:Rezang La was a defeat seared into our collective memory. The Chinese too lost 100s in capturing it. History was overturned overnight, apparently without a shot being fired. So we need to think deeply about why such a monumental achievement is being underplayed.

I believe that there is a larger purpose behind acting tough and talking soft. Stealth and patience are potent weapons for an underdog

Plus Modi is not a idealist but a realist.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 05 Sep 2020 10:47

Y I Patel wrote:TOI reporting that ITBP has now reinforced SFF in the Kala Top area

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 941669.cms

Let's add a couple of passes to our knowledge - Phurchuk La pass is the one from where our soldiers seem to be getting access to Kala Top, Yellow Bump (yes, there's that too!) and Chuti Chanla which, going by the suffix la, seems to be the pass through which the Chinese used to access South Bank of Pangong Tso:

That LAC needs a bit of straightening, methinks, too slanted towards the south west, a N-S straight line is much better, no?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 05 Sep 2020 10:48

vimal wrote:Only solution is to redraw the border as it was on January 1st 1962.

Redrawing boundary will mean war and Modi/India does not want war. Modi's whole effort to courting Xi was to sue for status quo and peace on the LAC. If war is imposed on India we will fight it just like we have responded to the latest salami slicing by the Chinese.

Btw, If we get into a war why stop at Jan 1st 1962 line? Why not take back the whole of Aksai chin or at least a version of a LAC that is more defensible.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 05 Sep 2020 10:59

nachiket wrote:
williams wrote: There are some interesting tidbits about what happened to these areas in 1962.

https://usiofindia.org/publication/usi-journal/battle-of-eastern-ladakh-1962-sino-indian-conflict-2/

Bottom line: Chacha's Himalayan blunder is one of the worst strategic miscalculation of our modern times.
This is a great source. Provides a detailed examination of the pattern of deployments back then and why some of them were wrong.

Also during the battles, the CHinese had captured, Magar Hill and Gurung Hill along with Rezang La, but withdrew from all three afterwards. But they did not withdraw from Black top and Helmet top. The author actually criticizes our decision not to occupy these features which would have allowed us to better observe and interdict Chinese movements choosing instead to occupy the lower Rezang La and Gurung Hill instead which were overrun. As per Nitin Gokhale and Vishnu Black Top and Helmet top are still occupied by the Chinese. We have managed to occupy some surrounding features which give us line of sight to their movements and which seems to have majorly irritated them now.

On the same ridge as the Black top there is another feature called the "Bump" about 1.5 km west of the Black top bang on the LAC. While Black top is higher by about 100 m, the Bump provides a similar view of the Chinese side as the Black top both to the north and the south.

Curious thing that the Chinese complained about Rezang/Rechin la occupation but not about our positions on the ridge north of the Spanggur gap

williams · Post by **williams** » 05 Sep 2020 11:01

Even if India wants status quo, Chinese are not in a position to give it. That would mean a loss of face. I think they will continue the stalemate until there is favorable domestic mood for de-escalation. But they did not anticipate IA to become aggressive and IA proved that wrong. So now they are sort of cornered. I dont think there is any face saver available for the Chinese. The test for us is how long can we maintain such aggressive posture in those heights. It is also very surprising that the Pakis are being quite.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 05 Sep 2020 11:15

amar_p wrote:Dr Shiv's analysis is that from Black top & Helmet top, Chinese spotters can direct artillery fire from the gun batteries that are located north/east of Sirijap to target Chusul and surrounding Indian facilities going right over and across Pagnong Tso. But that option is gone now. They can't do that from their positions on the banks of Spanggur since the ridge lines between that and Chushul are also occupied by IA.

IA's recent moves have effectively rendered their tanks & artillery blind, plus any move they make will be spotted by IA on the ridges which can direct hell fire to rain upon them.

PLA has to send their inadequately-fit, pawn-fed and demoralised troops up steep slopes in waves until IA forces on the top run out of ammo to change the new "status quo". We can imagine how that will turn out. Makes for gory, shameful press at home and abroad.

Else call CAS from PLAAF to precision bomb ridge lines held by IA (like we learnt to do in Kargil)- which they have zero experience in doing, plus all the disadvantages of low payload capacity, Indian Air Defense systems and fighter response are a big unknown factor.

Missiles are even more useless in this terrain, and will squarely make China the unjustifiable aggressor and invite US direct intervention first, sanctions next, flight of business forever. Losing Xinjian & Tibet is a distinct possibility. Next revolt in Inner Mongolia. PRC disintegration will follow.

Doing something aggressive elsewhere on land or sea is not going to change the situation in Ladhak, it will only create an even larger front with greater imponderables to manage with a PLA thats inept and lacking courage.

Net net, this means months of build-up has only brought them to a dead end. Not counting economic cost, diplomatic opprobrium and tarnished image.

Just like a small pin stuck in the right place can bring in a gigantic machine to a grinding halt, mighty PLA is stalled right now.

One can understand with sympathy why the Chinese are majorly irritated.

While I agree with the general trust of you post there are a few things that should make for a more realistic scenario.

1. Wave upon wave on one position seems to have an inbuilt assumption that rest of the Indian positions in that general area will be watching it like one watches a game. It does not work like that. When a Chinese attack start, all of IA units in the area will join the action, pounding the Chinese position, flanking attack and trying to capture their positions.

2. CAS from PLAAF will be met by CAS from the IAF even before they get anywhere near the drop zone.

3. China is already an unjustifiable aggressor in many areas including Ladakh and Champs sea, etc. One has to fight ones own wars and to expect "direct" US intervention is daydreaming. US will do its stuff like supplying intelligence, weapons, etc.

It also has an inbuilt assumption that India on its own won't be able to take the Chinese on. In a purely defensive war India will give the Chinese a bloody nose missile or no missile attack.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 05 Sep 2020 11:17

https://twitter.com/defence_news/status ... 6572487681

Prolonged impasse on China border can have high economic costs: Shyam Saran, former foreign secretary

Peace all all cost brigade that allowed Bakistan to run circles around India.

https://twitter.com/prasannavishy/statu ... 6830741504

China’s Will Try To Undermine India From Within: Obvious Targets Are Media, Business And Universities.
After the initial setback in Ladakh last May, India has steadily upped the ante, both on the military and economic fronts . @TheJaggi

0.5 front within India.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 05 Sep 2020 11:21

Insight here from @AmbVPrakash & Lt Gen @atahasnain53 on what they expect from the talks, and why they think the India-China rules of engagement have changed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVfs8m12wdY
India-China Standoff: Why Does China Want High Level Talks?

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 05 Sep 2020 11:33

^^^ Saran is not wrong, but if it needs to be done, it needs to be done. This will force the armed forces to become more nimble and improve our sensor presence so we can minimize manpower while maintaining the ability to quickly respond to any action.

The advantage the Chinese have over us is that the terrain on their side and the massive infrastructure building allows them to move large numbers of forces quickly between deployment zones, allowing them to stay in barracks and minimize the forces needed on the border.

On our side, the terrain is disadvantageous, and our road network is neither extensive enough nor good enough to allow quick deployment, forcing us to keep troops stationed on site. In addition, our surveillance infrastructure is arguably not as good as China, which has invested heavily in tactical and micro-drones, cameras and other sensors tied into the ISR.

Until we achieve some form of parity, we will be forced to keep troops deployed at and all along the LAC in force, in larger numbers than the Chinese.... They can move a battalion strength force from one sector to another in a matter of hours, while a similar redeployment in our case might take days. In other words, if we don't want them to surprise us, we need to retain sufficient strength across the entire border while they can pivot and surprise us quickly, and nimbly.

Of course, our recent bolstering of the ridgelines right under the Chinese noses shows the limitations of this strategy by the Chinese. They can sit on base a few kilometres behind - it prevents deep (5-6 km) ingresses by our troops, but also means that we have openings to make quick and shallow gains before their troops react.

The latest IA ops forces the PLA into similar deployments. In other words, they are now forced to mirror deploy at heights Just as our troops are, and given their lack of familiarity with mountain warfare, while we might face economic pain from this deployment, the PLA will almost certainly face similar levels of pain in deployment and morale.