Ladakh Flash Point

[twineedle]

From the Indian perspective, The reason why Galwan clash happened was because in early June, China agreed to move a tent on the Indian side of the LAC, but on June 14 that tent had returned. Col Babu and some soldiers went to interact with the PLA there, and things escalated. On the latest video released by China, you can even see Indian soldiers destroying the tent.
In South Pangong, the dispute is that India recognizes the Colombo line as LAC, but China does not. Since 1962, China enforced a buffer zone between the Colombo Line and its perception of the LAC, until India violates it. So, as the Indian Army stated multiple times, it did not violate india's perception of the LAC(the Colombo Line). This obviously means India did not occupy black too, since India recognizes that as aksai Chin. China however accused India of violating the LAC and occupying Chinese territory until Feb. 2021. Anyway, between the 5th and 6th round of talks, China removed its initial conditions of "equidistant disengagement and accepted Indian demands, so progress was made.

Similarly in the 12th round, China removed its condition of deescalation before disengagdment, which is the main reason an agreement was reached.

 

[ougoah]

Now the biggest centrepiece - the historic context.

This entire India China dispute on the western side i.e. the parts of Ladakh being claimed by both, is a part of a legacy dispute which both fought a border war for in 1962. Neither side saw eye to eye then. Nehru claimed "India China brothers" while simultaneously demanding China accept British India's border lines. China refused. India thought both the Soviets and Americans would back them up both politically and militarily and so ventured further into arrogance and refused to compromise. China offered to swap disputes for settlement and demarcate on compromises that admittedly do not include Aksai Chin as China considers that certainly a part of Tibet which is undeniably a part of China regardless of who and where says otherwise. A few hundred Californians wanting to leave the USA and set up a republic is no more valid in their wishes on separation. With uncompromising attitudes both sides on hair trigger alert started skirmishes and then a pretty full blown albeit short war.

China offered a total disengagement and pre war positions for a ceasefire. It did not want to continue this war because it is sure to be bloody the longer it drags on and since it is recovering from its civil war/s, Japanese invasion WW2, and the social conditions of the country then. India quickly accepted as neither Soviets or Americans provided an ounce of military support despite what Indian leaders imagined.

Pre war positions entail China controlling Aksai Chin though. The absolute specifics of control lines have shifted throughout the meantime. The remaining 20% that is still not in control by either side became inflamed recently. China wants undisputed control of Aksai Chin as part of undisputed and settled sovereignty which would require that India give up formal claims on Aksai Chin for starters. Demarcation of border somewhere between the lines to which China claims and the lines to which China controls i.e. blue line in main map, is something that China keeps offering. However it is still evident that China is probably not going to settle to demarcation of just to blue line. It wants it a bit further west formally.

India insists on making Aksai Chin claims and Indian politicians are as hawkish if not more so (under Modi) and have even publicly talked about controlling Aksai Chin. China is uncomfortably wary of this due to India's military core being within driving range of this region while China's core military presence is almost exclusively in the east (conventional military not talking strategic equipment like Silos and ICBMs etc).

So China wants the 20% demarcated along its wishes (sort of half way down but offers differ) which gives total settlement of Aksai Chin. India will refuse even a demarcation along China's control line (main map's blue line) since it takes Aksai Chin away from them for good. Therefore the next best thing China can realistically try for without going into a war would be to make the 20% into a buffer. The entire stretch. Cutting India off from Aksai Chin. If they cannot approach land that is adjacent to Aksai Chin, they cannot get even close to patrolling it let alone having any presence on it. This remains a state of conflict because India refuses to leave 20% despite agreeing to buffer in exchange for mutual disengagement along high profile areas like Pangong fingers and Galwan. Indian troops remain in the northern sections of the 20% to maintain access to land that is immediately adjacent to Aksai Chin. Negotations no doubt have reached a higher state of equilibrium with China have achieved may of its secondary aim of buffer conversion but as it gains this stuff, it has less bargaining power to negotiate for India to totally leave the entire 20% stretch simple because India has fewer reasons. China could try to gain some bargaining power with new developments but that remains to be seen.

 

[ougoah]

From the Indian perspective, The reason why Galwan clash happened was because in early June, China agreed to move a tent on the Indian side of the LAC, but on June 14 that tent had returned. Col Babu and some soldiers went to interact with the PLA there, and things escalated. On the latest video released by China, you can even see Indian soldiers destroying the tent.
In South Pangong, the dispute is that India recognizes the Colombo line as LAC, but China does not. Since 1962, China enforces a bigger zone between the Colombo Line and its perception of the LAC, until India violates it. So, as the Indian Army states multiple times, it did not violate india's perception of the LAC(the Colombo Line). China however accused India of violating the LAC until Feb. 2021. Anyway, between the 5th and 6th round of talks, China removed its initial conditions of "equidistant disengagement," so progress was made.

Similarly in the 12th round, China removed its condition of deescalation before disengagdmsnt, which is the main reason an agreement was reached.

Yep it was sort of centred around some Chinese construction that India thinks is on their land (well it's on disputed land) and China thinks India needs to accept since India is also on disputed land. If India thinks it has a right to remove a tent within 20% disputed, why are there Indian positions there? This becomes a chicken or egg question as both sides at this state insists they are there to make sure the other doesn't do xyz and settle in for good.

In the video it is clear there are MANY indian soldiers and they are well equipped arguably betterthan the chinese soldiers are. Well there are many videos slowly released by Chinese side as the situation de-escalates very slowly. The earlier ones show poorly equiped chinese soldiers without helmets and shields indians have and then PLA soldiers also fairly well equipped and numbers differ.

Indians however did make the approach on June 15th. During when the sun was still barely up and fighting went well into the night apparently. The night video released by China show fighting took place in almost no lighting and lots of use of whistles to signify positions and possibly basic commands.

Indians had positions and tents inside 20% well before June and Chinese did not attack them. Chinese building a position was attacked by Colonel Babu. Whether that was commanded by Indian military and goveernment or not is not disclosed by either side. Chinese state I recall might even have given Idnian government an out and actually officially said the act was a rogue Colonel.

 

[twineedle]

Now a clear headed review of motivations, who started the first move? that's a chicken or egg question. In Jan 2020, the circumstances and situation if not "started" by India would be "started" by China right? Both answers are correct in their own way but the important note would be to realise that whoever is assigned as the "starter", started the recent Ladakh confrontation in response to what they considered unacceptable. For China it was unacceptable that India would be increasing patrols and presence on the disputed 20% in Jan 2020. For India it was unacceptable that China controls the 80% (Aksai Chin) which India's Home Affairs Minister Amit Shah and PM Modi both are on record claiming are sacred parts of India and India would pay with blood to "regain" them.

Now ask yourself. Is it more likely that India would make moves on the 20% disputed that remains given the political circumstances and the fact that they want at least a slice of the legacy dispute. They have nothing much to lose anyway right? Cursed by Indians if they make big statements for elections and then doing nothing. Even a small conflict with China has little at risk. Lives of Indian soldiers aren't worth half a damn for these politicians given Indians soldiers commit suicide more than the rest of the world's combined due to their conditions. Indian politicians do nothing to stop loss of lives that are common place for Kashmir and Pakistan conflicts.

What has China got to gain by taking the remaining 20%? During a phase of its history when the present circumstances are working so well for it. When it has so much American led attention on it. China farts and the western media talks about diarrhea for a month. Why would China inflame a dispute it has been doing nothing with for 50 odd years? Leaving it as, almost never making patrols, and been offering buffer deal and compromise demarcation deals with India for so long? And if for some reason China did want to control the remaining 20% with a might is right attitude (which Indians actually hold - Kashmir) why would it win the battle and then disengage? Why would China capture Pangong lake fingers and Galwan forward positions for 9 months and then disengage if their aim was to capture? Because Indians are scary and super strong? Well even if we assume that is the case, why would PLA expect the Indians to not resist? You're asking me to believe that China only went in expecting zero resistance from Indians and as soon as scary strong Indian soldiers make a show, we will disengage? Well how come we stayed for 9 months then?

Indian narrative does NOT add up, and fails patrolspectacularly. Chinese one is at least patrolplausible.

China was definitely patrolling as much, if not more than India. You can tell that by the amount of roads it has built in pangong, gogra, Hot Springs, and Depsang. In addition, Indian soldiers faced more geographic barriers. For example in Pangong, it is impossible to cross finger 4 by vehicle, which means finger 4 can be easily blocked by either side. Col. Dinny explained this in an interview a while ago. That is also the reason PLA was unable to patrol past finger 4, despite its claim being further west. The same applies with the Depsang bottleneck. And in Gogra the disengagement area is essentially a gorge jutting into the Kugrang valley, and both sides only have one entrance. However China had started building roads there years before the standoff, as you can see on Google Earth.

 

[ougoah]

China was definitely patrolling as much, if not more than India. You can tell that by the amount of roads it has built in pangong, gogra, Hot Springs, and Depsang. In addition, Indian soldiers faced more geographic barriers. For example in Pangong, it is impossible to cross finger 4 by vehicle, which means finger 4 can be easily blocked by either side. Col. Dinny explained this in an interview a while ago. That is also the reason PLA was unable to patrol past finger 4, despite its claim being further west. The same applies with the Depsang bottleneck. And in Gogra the disengagement area is essentially a gorge jutting into the Kugrang valley, and both sides only have one entrance. However China had started building roads there years before the standoff, as you can see on Google Earth.

I think India was patrolling more than China. You can tell because India's own ex four star General VK Singh admitted to this. If he is okay with admitting this much, imagine how much more India really patrolled compared to China in reality compared to what he is okay with admitting.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Even The Hindu calls it an "unwitting confession".

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just because China built a road to finger 5 doesn't mean it patrolled the disputed 20% more. This is known as a fallacy.

Just because it is difficult to cross finger 4 for a vehicle, doesn't mean Indian soldiers didn't patrol F4 to F8. Again a fallacy to state that just because it's hard to a vehicle to cross means they never crossed even on foot. I don't know why you insist.

Even if India didn't patrol F4 to F8, are you saying they never patrolled the entire stretch of 20%? Just because it wasn't on 1% of the disputed area it means India didn't patrol the rest of it? Fallacious doesn't begin to describe the assumption you demand to be taken as fact.

 

[twineedle]

I think India was patrolling more than China. You can tell because India's own ex four star General VK Singh admitted to this. If he is okay with admitting this much, imagine how much more India really patrolled compared to China in reality compared to what he is okay with admitting.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Even The Hindu calls it an "unwitting confession".

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just because China built a road to finger 5 doesn't mean it patrolled the disputed 20% more. This is known as a fallacy.

Just because it is difficult to cross finger 4 for a vehicle, doesn't mean Indian soldiers didn't patrol F4 to F8. Again a fallacy to state that just because it's hard to a vehicle to cross means they never crossed even on foot. I don't know why you insist.

Even if India didn't patrol F4 to F8, are you saying they never patrolled the entire stretch of 20%? Just because it wasn't on 1% of the disputed area it means India didn't patrol the rest of it? Fallacious doesn't begin to describe the assumption you demand to be taken as fact.

So are you saying PLA never stopped Indian soldiers from going past finger 4? And there is no evidence that China wasn't extensively patrolling disputed arsas, like you assume.

And when did I say India never patrolled the disputed areas? Obviously there are some areas where India has the advantage, so it patrols more than China in those areas. Those are not the current standoff areas, however.

The fact is in Pang ong and gogra, China has the advantage in terrain and infrastructure over Infian patrols. As a result, PLA patrolled those areas more than IA/ITBP before it withdrew during disengagement.

 

[ougoah]

The facts are India officially admitted that they patrolled and patrolled more frequently than China. VK Singh even admits that PLA barely ever came out to patrol.

It is also a fact that the Chinese state officially condemns India's patrolling and presence within disputed land. Something they attribute this recent flare up to being caused by. The entire thing adds up and adds up perfectly.

Short version of 2019 lead up to confrontations correct me where and if I'm wrong with evidence please.

1. Modi during elections constantly claims he will deal with Pakistan and China harshly to gain Hindu nationalists and right wing tough guys support.

2. India's Amit Shah in 2019 says J&K and Aksai Chin are Indian lands and India will "sacrifice lives" to capture.

3. China says India patrols disputed territory too much (to which Indian General admits later).

4. In Jan 2020 to May 2020 lot's of pushing and shoving with both sides now within 20% and both sides having temporary positions. China has completed a road from F8 to F5.

5. PLA occupies F8 to F4 and parts of Galwan. Both sides still within dispute and building within with military presence.

6. June fighting occured after Indian Colonel with a large group of Indian soldiers attack a Chinese construction site they wanted to tear down and a position that seemed poorly attended on that day. PLA reinforcements come. Fight ensues.

7. Same tensions and entrenched positions until India either intrudes into China's side of LAC past black and helmet top peaks or India simply stays below those peaks. Either way, they do not stay east of those position for long even if they did go past that line. China says they did and they were repelled off. End result both sides agree on is that India only held positions well on India's side of LAC. It is either a failed attempt or a nothing move. Indians want to either fall into camps that imagine they ventured all the way into China but somehow then won't talk about how that ended up or they fall into the group that says Indians bravely blocked PLA's southern advance. Okay whatever lol.

8. Negotiations for PLA disengagement from F8 to F4 finally reached mutual agreement with India ceding to buffer. Modi's opponent is pressuring the crap out of him with a lot of political accusations of failure etc.

9. Gogra then becomes a buffer with both sides moving back.

Now both sides are still negotiating presumably China wants to convert the other areas Indian troops have presence within 20% into buffer but China's bargaining position is running out since it has traded unfavourable military and political conditions for Modi, for Modi agreeing to buffer. If he agrees to total buffer, he loses access to land adjacent to Aksai Chin and so can forget about Aksai Chin effectively. Due to this, I think he will not relent quite as easily especially since China has no more bargaining position. It had bargaining position when it held Pangong fingers and PLA was positioned in Gogra and Hot Springs. Now it traded those for buffer, it does not have anything else to use to demand India step out of the other areas India is still in.

 

[ougoah]

So are you saying PLA never stopped Indian soldiers from going past finger 4? And there is no evidence that China wasn't extensively patrolling disputed arsas, like you assume.

And when did I say India never patrolled the disputed areas? Obviously there are some areas where India has the advantage, so it patrols more than China in those areas. Those are not the current standoff areas, however.

Wait slow down. You are missing many important points with illogical rush to false conclusions.

My post pointed out how wrong your assumption that China patrolled more than India.

You made the claim that you think China patrolled more because it has a road.

I provided evidence. Your own four star General admitted Indian patrolled 10 to 15 times more frequently than PLA and this was what he was comfortable admitting.

You claimed that just because Indian vehicles can't go from Finger 4 to Finger 4+... well what's stopping them from going anywhere else? Are we only talking about 1 dimensional lines on a map? Nope. I was saying India patrolled the remaining 20% disputed 2 dimensional plane. Just because it can't get vehicles to turn on a point, doesn't mean it hasn't patrolled the land. It has. China said it patrolled and India admitted it patrolled. China didn't like the fact India patrolled and so sent resistance in. If the Chinese did nothing, India would simply increase presence until they get some de facto control. The longer you let a squatter staying in an unclaimed piece of land, the more they feel entitled to it. China put PLA in as soon as they realised in Jan 2020 that India is trying to gain de facto control of 20% remaining dispute.

If this was some Chinese invasion like heaps of Indians want to believe, why didn't China invade? Why no war?

If this was the Indian story of India stopping Chinese "land grab" why did China manage to grab everything it wants without India going to war? How come India didn't shoot?? It would well be within its rights if this was indeed a Chinese invasion "land grab".

Why did Chinese manage to grab the land only to disengage after Chinese condition for disengagement were met? After 9 whole months of China grabbing and keeping land that was disputed? Why did China choose to give it back if their aim was to grab land?

Indian narrative breaks apart before it begins but the west is too fearful and hateful of China to care about what is already obvious. No nation is condemning China despite western nations condemning China for everything they can imagine and put some semblance of charges against. Yet on this issue they are not even peeping about it. Why? Because the event is obvious enough. They also have evidence and their evidence supports China's account. China has evidence and released but 1% of it. Videos, photos, etc backing up everything China has claimed. India has issued... Z.E.R.O evidence of India's China land grab narrative.

 

[twineedle]

Wait slow down. You are missing many important points with illogical rush to false conclusions.

My post pointed out how wrong your assumption that China patrolled more than India.

You made the claim that you think China patrolled more because it has a road.

I provided evidence. Your own four star General admitted Indian patrolled 10 to 15 times more frequently than PLA and this was what he was comfortable admitting.

You claimed that just because Indian vehicles can't go from Finger 4 to Finger 4+... well what's stopping them from going anywhere else? Are we only talking about 1 dimensional lines on a map? Nope. I was saying India patrolled the remaining 20% disputed 2 dimensional plane. Just because it can't get vehicles to turn on a point, doesn't mean it hasn't patrolled the land. It has. China said it patrolled and India admitted it patrolled. China didn't like the fact India patrolled and so sent resistance in. If the Chinese did nothing, India would simply increase presence until they get some de facto control. The longer you let a squatter staying in an unclaimed piece of land, the more they feel entitled to it. China put PLA in as soon as they realised in Jan 2020 that India is trying to gain de facto control of 20% remaining dispute.

South Pangong has already been discussed. The Indian Army stated multiple times it never violated the Colombo line, which India considers the LAC. China, however considers the LAC to be further west, which is why it enforced a buffer zone in those areas since 1962. By violating that buffer zone and reaching exactly up to its perception of the LAC, the Indian Army had effectively occupied large amounts of territory China considered its own that was previously a buffer zone. That is why GT was complaining about India occupying Chinese territory until feb 2021. The only thing China could do was capitulate to India's initial conditions, which it silently did some time between the 5th and 6th talks by dropping its initial demand of "equidistant disengagement."


You are right. As I said, China was patrolling just as much as India, hence it was blocking IA from going past finger 4 in Pangong as Colonel Dinny said. And as you said, in other areas india probably patrols more. Those aren't involved in the standoff though. And China built the road in Pangong in 1999, and its roads in Gogra and hot Springs area were built several years before the standoff.

And if you really believe VK Singh, you must also believe that PLA suffered 60+ casualties in Galwan.

South Pangong has already been discussed. The Indian Army stated multiple times it never violated the Colombo line, which India considers the LAC. China, however considers the LAC to be further west, which is why it enforced a buffer zone in those areas since 1962. By violating that buffer zone and reaching exactly up to its perception of the LAC, the Indian Army had effectively occupied large amounts of territory China considered its own that was previously a buffer zone. That is why GT was complaining about India occupying Chinese territory until feb 2021. The only thing China could do is capitulate to India's initial conditions, which it silently did some time between the 5th and 6th talks.

 

[ougoah]

I know Indian readers are just going to deny and not accept any piece of evidence that breaks their fable. They will relegate themselves to cheap shots of extreme racism and comforting empty statements like "China tried to shift LAC west but failed hooray jai hind". Platitudes do not cover reality. Truth and reality do not care for delusions.

If China ever wanted to really take this piece of land and invade India, it would go in shooting. There would be no slow escalation of "turn back you're in China" banners to pushing and shoving and so on until fighting and then stopped there. If the aim was to capture land, they'd go in shooting. This was an Indian attempt at gaining de facto control through salami slicing which they initially assumed Chinese would not react to 1. because China already control the 80% and 2. because in Jan 2020 India was thinking covid would totally overwhelm and defeat China.