The reason Pangong was an issue was because PLA had erected permanent structures which it had not done before. Confrontations between patrols happened all the time that is hardly newsworthy. You were saying that PLA "rarely" sent patrols.
When did I bring up permanent structures? I was referring to patrols. You said PLA rarely patrolled the disputed areas. I was saying that isn't true. I thought we were always discussing patrols?
Woah hang on you are actually being slippery here.
First you claimed China patrols more.
I corrected your conjecture with proof and evidence. It is undeniable.
You then choose to show a 2017 video of a confrontation at F4 which you didn't consider would absolutely ruin your argument position for obvious reasons (I explained). Now you're changing the topic.
So you agree then that the only decent evidence available shows that India patrolled more. Which explains China's sense of urgency and feeling Aksai Chin and 20% dispute is being threatened, hence action -> occupation of land -> disengage after India agrees to leave and convert land to buffer.
Your Colonel Dinny isn't as reputable as VK Singh I'm afraid. Do you know why? Because a pro-India Indian saying India is right and did these things right is suspect. A pro-India Indian of MUCH higher authority and knowledge of these events admitting India did some things that don't serve India's narrative is much less suspect and so rare and unexpected it ought to be listened to.
If you take Dinny's words should we also assume every Chinese PLA leaker is saying the truth about everything the PLA has done here?