Line of Actual Control (LAC) : India & Tibet Border Updates

_Anonymous_ said:
Whenever a Malayali has been in a position of authority w.r.t China we've come to grief. Be it K. M. Panniker or V. K. Krisha Menon or anybody who's succeeded them.

This man goes about claiming a virtue out of a necessity of the 1993 agreement on the LAC which doesn't talk of the LAC at all but defines ways to regulate the behavior of the troops stationed there.

He thinks what's happened now & Doklam was avoidable or could be better handled but has nothing to say about the GoI's capitulation during earlier Chinese incursions when he was the NSA.

He has a prescription for what our FP has to be with our neighbors notably Bangladesh, SL & Nepal but neglects to mention that when the Chinese invested in Hambantota, they first approached us but we're rebuffed. They went ahead with the Chinese. I wonder what cost benefit analysis did this man undertake then. None of the Indian PM's visited Bangladesh or Nepal when he was the NSA & even before. In fact when Modi visited Nepal in 2014 , he was the first Indian PM in 2 decades to have visited Nepal.

He thinks India ought not to toe the US line on Iran but I wonder if he remembers what was the GoI's stance when more stringent sanctons were imposed during Obama's tenure when he was the NSA.

This is what happens when we have ideologically charged bureaucrats who occupy the high office. They see everything including the nation's supreme self interest through that prism.
Click to expand...

The entire UPA Govt was Badly Compromised

MMS , Antony , Khurshid , Chidambaram
And above all The Gandhis
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nikhil, Ironhide and Chain Smoker
ghostwhowalks said:
Well in case of an all out war with India, trouble would already have come knocking for both countries. So what would prevent China from launching a salvo on new delhi, if say, IA makes a push towards Tibet or looks to reclaim Askai Hind?
Click to expand...

Please understand that the PRC had, in my opinion, two aims prior to undertaking the present actions:

1. To 'force' a standoff with India, arguably the only country that can take a stand against it in Asia on its own, and demonstrate Indian unwillingness to go to war to protect its interests/territorial integrity (something that was apparent on 27 Feb 2019 when GoI did not order a retaliation for PAF transgression), thereby sending a 'message' to its intended audience in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits.

2. To reach some kind of settlement with India over the boundaries, and insure and ensure its interests in PoK (GB).

So far, it has managed to achieve its objectives.

Why would it want to do anything more now?




ghostwhowalks said:
What incentive would China have to desist? a significant loss of territory will sound the death knell for CCP, so would then they not be pushed to enhance the conflict. IMHO it will be suicidal for us to belienve that the conflict will remain localised, if a shooting match does start with China.
Click to expand...

Like I mentioned above, PRC today is sitting smug. Why would it expand the conflict? The rationale put forth by you defeats their purpose. The onus, today, is on Indian leadership to evict them from the 'no-mans land' which they have occupied, altering the status quo. They are sitting in a happy place.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: thinkingcap81, Yashpatel604, noksss and 5 others
Falcon said:
Please understand that the PRC had, in my opinion, two aims prior to undertaking the present actions:

1. To 'force' a standoff with India, arguably the only country that can take a stand against it in Asia on its own, and demonstrate Indian unwillingness to go to war to protect its interests/territorial integrity (something that was apparent on 27 Feb 2019 when GoI did not order a retaliation for PAF transgression), thereby sending a 'message' to its intended audience in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits.

2. To reach some kind of settlement with India over the boundaries, and insure and ensure its interests in PoK (GB).

So far, it has managed to achieve its objectives.

Why would it want to do anything more now?






Like I mentioned above, PRC today is sitting smug. Why would it expand the conflict? The rationale put forth by you defeats their purpose. The onus, today, is on Indian leadership to evict them from the 'no-mans land' which they have occupied, altering the status quo. They are sitting in a happy place.
Click to expand...

There is One Big difference between
What the Chinese are saying and what they have achieved so far

They are saying that this place where they are squatting right now is theirs

But they have NOT achieved India' s agreement or consent on their CLAIM

That is why they have mobilised their forces

Because we have rejected their claims
 
Falcon said:
The onus, today, is on Indian leadership to evict them from the 'no-mans land' which they have occupied, altering the status quo. They are sitting in a happy place.
Click to expand...

So you mean the parliament will pass another resolution to not rest until all the territory lost is recovered and that will be the end of it. Sigh....
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hellfire
Jaymax said:
So you mean the parliament will pass another resolution to not rest until all the territory lost is recovered and that will be the end of it. Sigh....
Click to expand...

Yes that is Right

Territory DOES NOT go anywhere

Only Times and Circumstances make its conquest Either Easier or Difficult

That is why Pakistan still dreams of Conquering DELHI
 
Falcon said:
Please understand that the PRC had, in my opinion, two aims prior to undertaking the present actions:

1. To 'force' a standoff with India, arguably the only country that can take a stand against it in Asia on its own, and demonstrate Indian unwillingness to go to war to protect its interests/territorial integrity (something that was apparent on 27 Feb 2019 when GoI did not order a retaliation for PAF transgression), thereby sending a 'message' to its intended audience in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits.

2. To reach some kind of settlement with India over the boundaries, and insure and ensure its interests in PoK (GB).

So far, it has managed to achieve its objectives.

Why would it want to do anything more now?






Like I mentioned above, PRC today is sitting smug. Why would it expand the conflict? The rationale put forth by you defeats their purpose. The onus, today, is on Indian leadership to evict them from the 'no-mans land' which they have occupied, altering the status quo. They are sitting in a happy place.
Click to expand...

They did a semi-Kargil and we decided to look away. Fine by me. But in return we did not do any sort of tit-for-tat move to counter their move.

I am still hoping we will do something where we have the advantage. Especially something they will never expect, like pitching tents right next to their North Doklam camp. Or even convert the LAC into LoC in many places and then tell them to go back in exchange for our withdrawal. Hopefully also make it clear that any new attempt will result in dead Little Emperors.

At this rate, they are definitely going to open up another front with their new walk in and squat technique. We just have to do it before they do.
STEPHEN COHEN said:
There is One Big difference between
What the Chinese are saying and what they have achieved so far

They are saying that this place where they are squatting right now is theirs

But they have NOT achieved India' s agreement or consent on their CLAIM

That is why they have mobilised their forces

Because we have rejected their claims
Click to expand...

That won't matter. If things go on for too long, then we end up with a new status quo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sulla84, thinkingcap81 and Hellfire
randomradio said:
They did a semi-Kargil and we decided to look away. Fine by me. But in return we did not do any sort of tit-for-tat move to counter their move.

I am still hoping we will do something where we have the advantage. Especially something they will never expect, like pitching tents right next to their North Doklam camp. Or even convert the LAC into LoC in many places and then tell them to go back in exchange for our withdrawal. Hopefully also make it clear that any new attempt will result in dead Little Emperors.

At this rate, they are definitely going to open up another front with their new walk in and squat technique. We just have to do it before they do.


That won't matter. If things go on for too long, then we end up with a new status quo.
Click to expand...

There is no provision of Adverse Possession in International Territorial Claims and Conquests

World Maps have been regularly Changing in the last 5000 years

It is a matter of Biding your Time
 
www.google.com

5th round of corps commander talks over, China Study Group likely to meet today for review

The India-China military-level meeting started at 11 am Sunday and lasted till 9.30 pm, focusing on disengagement in Pangong Tso areas.
www.google.com
www.google.com

India calls for complete troop disengagement in military talks with China - Times of India

India made a renewed push for China to complete troop disengagement at Pangong Tso and Gogra areas as well as pullback from the Depsang Plains in eastern Ladakh during top-level military talks between the two countries on Sunday. However, there was no official word on the outcome of the fifth...
www.google.com www.google.com
 
Falcon said:
Please understand that the PRC had, in my opinion, two aims prior to undertaking the present actions:

1. To 'force' a standoff with India, arguably the only country that can take a stand against it in Asia on its own, and demonstrate Indian unwillingness to go to war to protect its interests/territorial integrity (something that was apparent on 27 Feb 2019 when GoI did not order a retaliation for PAF transgression), thereby sending a 'message' to its intended audience in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits.

2. To reach some kind of settlement with India over the boundaries, and insure and ensure its interests in PoK (GB).

So far, it has managed to achieve its objectives.

Why would it want to do anything more now?






Like I mentioned above, PRC today is sitting smug. Why would it expand the conflict? The rationale put forth by you defeats their purpose. The onus, today, is on Indian leadership to evict them from the 'no-mans land' which they have occupied, altering the status quo. They are sitting in a happy place.
Click to expand...

I don't think PLA achieved its objectives because Global times is still churning out propaganda pics and speaking in threatening tone.

Their plan(s), whatever they were/are, surely didn't involve PLA troops KIA.

Now it's not about territory/LAC but teaching IA a lesson for what they did to PLA. We were expected to take a beating lying down.

They want to make sure nothing ever happens to their little emperors before disengagement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sulla84, Chain Smoker and Ironhide
Falcon said:
Please understand that the PRC had, in my opinion, two aims prior to undertaking the present actions:

1. To 'force' a standoff with India, arguably the only country that can take a stand against it in Asia on its own, and demonstrate Indian unwillingness to go to war to protect its interests/territorial integrity (something that was apparent on 27 Feb 2019 when GoI did not order a retaliation for PAF transgression), thereby sending a 'message' to its intended audience in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits.

2. To reach some kind of settlement with India over the boundaries, and insure and ensure its interests in PoK (GB).

So far, it has managed to achieve its objectives.

Why would it want to do anything more now?






Like I mentioned above, PRC today is sitting smug. Why would it expand the conflict? The rationale put forth by you defeats their purpose. The onus, today, is on Indian leadership to evict them from the 'no-mans land' which they have occupied, altering the status quo. They are sitting in a happy place.
Click to expand...

I dont think they are done yet. Their main goal is do something to secure CPEC. I am sure they have some plan for this.
 
Falcon said:
Please understand that the PRC had, in my opinion, two aims prior to undertaking the present actions:

1. To 'force' a standoff with India, arguably the only country that can take a stand against it in Asia on its own, and demonstrate Indian unwillingness to go to war to protect its interests/territorial integrity (something that was apparent on 27 Feb 2019 when GoI did not order a retaliation for PAF transgression), thereby sending a 'message' to its intended audience in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits.

2. To reach some kind of settlement with India over the boundaries, and insure and ensure its interests in PoK (GB).

So far, it has managed to achieve its objectives.

Why would it want to do anything more now?






Like I mentioned above, PRC today is sitting smug. Why would it expand the conflict? The rationale put forth by you defeats their purpose. The onus, today, is on Indian leadership to evict them from the 'no-mans land' which they have occupied, altering the status quo. They are sitting in a happy place.
Click to expand...

Is there anyway we can occupy other no man's land as a retaliation?
 
Falcon said:
1. To 'force' a standoff with India, arguably the only country that can take a stand against it in Asia on its own, and demonstrate Indian unwillingness to go to war to protect its interests/territorial integrity (something that was apparent on 27 Feb 2019 when GoI did not order a retaliation for PAF transgression), thereby sending a 'message' to its intended audience in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits.
Click to expand...
This thing I can never understand. India invaded Pakistan, dropped some bombs and failed to deploy any air defence in advance. There were no half way decent aircrafts patrolling the areas AND there were no long range rocket artillery or missiles to attack objectives in Pakistan present in Kashmir.

What the hell were we playing with? What was the expectation? Who was the idiot who came up with a battle plan with no reinforcement?

The moment Indian fighter was shot down, Pakistan's airbases should have been taken out by ballistic missiles or cruise missiles. Why the hell entire plan had no foresight or no second line of defence or action built into it?

Now compare and contrast this with China : There are forces, reinforcement, artillery, tanks and what not. We are paying the price of the idiots who run the show in new delhi and the idiots who agreed not to respond on Feb 27th.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom