Ladakh Flash Point

Status
Not open for further replies.

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
Gen. Sharma never said Depsang wasn't a legacy issue. He said that PLA would block Indian patrols multiple times, but those face offs would get resolved at the local commander level and would later be attempted again. If you read his full article, Gen. Sharma specifically says that just like India would patrol the pps, PLA would regularly patrol up to Burtse and Track Junction, well over 10 km in Inidna territory. He also clearly says that there is a "mutual block" where both sides are preventing each other from crossing the bottleneck. In addition he clearly states that China has been denied its claim line in many sectors, and he disagrees with the likes of Shukla and Sawhney.

The reason 2013 was so significant was because PLA had set up camp very close to Burtse and did not move back until India agreed to dismantle structures in Chumar.

Here is the full article
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
So, China pushed India further back and inched closer to its Claim line?

I don't think there's much to disagree here? You'd very well know who is the losing one here (regarding Area lost under patrol as well as Achieving the objective of inching closer to the claim lines).
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
The first major standoff at Depsang happened under Manmohan Singh. And under Modi, Indo-Sino relations were actually pretty good until last year. Even after Doklam, Modi and Xi held two informal meetings.

The rest has already been discussed. In the areas you are referring to, China had been building infrastructure for decades. For example, in Raki Nallah and jeevan Nallah, China had roads leading to its claim line even before 2010. Even if Indian patrols reached certain areas beyond the LAC between those two lines, That area was always dominated by China due to superior infrastructure(until recently) and geographical hallenges. For example, Indian patrols can only go on foot past the bottleneck, and in Pangong, finger 4 acts as a natural barrier and prevents connectivity with the motorable road from Lukung, while China has a road from Sirjiap(well east of finger 8) to foxhole point, on the eastern side of the finger, which is basically a flat beach. The western part is dominated by the ridge. Col. Dinny, who has led patrols there, has explained all of this, but apparently he is a bhakt.

Anyway, this standoff was not just about the areas between the red and pink lines in the map you posted a while back, although China probably did want to further secure its presence in the area. It was about China trying to shift the lac westward to match its historic claim. Otherwise why was China initially demanding India vacate Dhan Singh Thapa as a condition for disengagement, and why did the Chinese Foreign ministry claim the entire Galwan Valley is part of China? The same situation applies in Demchok/Chumar where China claims the entire sector. China's initial conditions for Pangong Tso were in no way met, the reason why disengagement on Pangong took so long was because India refused China's conditions until they were revised to what was suitable to India.

And it wasn't just India patrolling China-claimed territory. PLA patrolled well into areas claimed by India. For example Gen. Sharma clearly said that just like India would patrol to its pps, PLA would patrol to the Track Junction and Burtse, well sithin Indian claimed territory. Now both sides are blocking each other at the bottleneck.

Quite right about the first standoff happening under Manmohan Singh but Doklam sparked a greater escalation of border confrontation. While Modi and Xi had their meetings, it's evident the informal "agreements" from those meetings never amounted to any positive or constructive de-escalation. You will blame it entirely on China and a Chinese nationalist would blame it entirely on India. That's been discussed.

India patrolled up to and beyond finger 4. It patrolled up to India's own claims (not including Aksai China's eastern borders for obvious reasons) within this 20% stretch. If you want to call the situation of China demanding India vacate DST and claiming Galwan valley HS etc, why ignore that India claims all this as well. You're using China's claim which has always been around since the 1950s, as some sort of reason for the standoff. India claims land as well so asking "Otherwise why was China initially demanding India vacate Dhan Singh Thapa as a condition for disengagement, and why did the Chinese Foreign ministry claim the entire Galwan Valley is part of China? The same situation applies in Demchok/Chumar where China claims the entire sector." is no different to me claiming that India instigated this stand off to push LAC to blue line in that map in an effort to take at least 20% of this historic legacy dispute, of which China has already won 80% after the 1962 war. If anything this makes much more sense.

Anyway in seriousness, to answer your question which DOESN'T prove your point because come on, have some logic. Why did China demand India vacate DST? Well because it is within the disputed land. Why did China claim Galwan valley? Well because it's a part of the historic dispute. The exact lines of claims matter and they aren't actually clear when it comes to Depsang but clear enough when it comes to Galwan. Same for Demchok where both claim it all.

So your theory that China's been trying to push the LAC westward doesn't hold water at all because it's immediately disproven.

1. China already took control of a great deal. If it's purpose was to push the LAC which it achieved, why would they discuss disengagement terms with India? It took control for about 9 months. India refused to militarily challenge and talked with China. If China's point was to take control, why would they achieve that and then negotiate disengagement terms after winning the objective?

2. You ask why China wants India to step back. Well that's again answered with what happened on Pangong. China wanted India behind F3 which is basically China's claim line realistically speaking. In return for India stepping behind F3 and guaranteeing China that it will not patrol beyond F3, China disengaged PLA. The same with the other areas where China demands India step behind in return for standoff to disengage everywhere along this border. There is no other reason and nothing unclear about this. It's not so that once India vacates DST, China will capture it lol. That's not how diplomacy works and not how China could possibly act after agreements. That would be akin to India vacating F4 and going behind F3 only to have PLA not only keep F4 to F8 but also advance to F3. Did that happen? No.

China very simply wants India to vacate the disputed 20% and make guarantees that it will not patrol it because patrolling it can potentially escalate the situation especially if command breaks down.

This is why China demands India vacate xyz for the standoff to de-escalate. India refuses to because it correctly understands that if they vacate xyz, India totally loses their claim for the 80% they've lost since 1962. Not only that but they also will lose access to the 20% in terms of patrolling but of course India will formally still claim the 100%. China wants the 20% to become a buffer. It has no need to control it so long as the 80% it already controlled for 60 odd years to maintain status quo and well out of Indian invasion reach unless India step into and over the 20% which they'd provide guarantees not to a la Pangong F3 ->
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
This situation is now so abundantly clear even India figures are candidly exposing and talking about it, albeit infrequently.

If China wanted the 20%, they'd take it and there'd be nothing India could militarily do. It would just be diplomatically stupid and a useless move by China. It would also put into risk what it's been working for and building up while earning it nothing in return except for a bit more barren land. Don't forget that China already controlled the 80% of the historic legacy dispute and has so for 60 years.

In fact, China took it unilaterally and forced India to commit to a partial resolution because the situation became politically humiliating for Modi that he had to cooperate on Pangong disengagement (while pathetically dressing it up as Indian victory despite agreeing to China's terms) while the remaining standoff has no resolution. This standoff is detrimental to China and certainly to India. China has next to nothing to gain for flaring things up and risking the progress it has made. India risks very little and has everything to lose if it loses access to the entire 20% because that means losing their entire legacy claim which includes Aksai Chin.

Jai Hind bhakts have been beaten down at every development and the last refuge is actually claiming this thing was instigated by China and India has won simply because it thwarted a non-existent Chinese attempt to shift LAC further westward forgetting that China took control of it for 9 months and then created a buffer in return for India vacating and guaranteeing it will not step into the disputed land at this particular part (Pangong lake). The theory is stupid because it makes no sense. Even if this is the objective, this isn't the smarted way to approach it and even if this stupid military way is used, China would be foolish to risk western theatre against potentially the entire India army and airforce which is hours away as opposed to China's core military which is days away.

Again let's be mindful that this place is barren, has no strategic importance to China outside of one tiny part of BRI and even that can reroute further north. I mean BRI doesn't absolutely require Ladakh or even Ladakh stability from any Indian military action. It has no resources and it is uninhabited currently with sparse historic use by anyone. It isn't worth risking anything over for China but it is worth putting a stop to what it considered increased Indian movements in the form of mirror infrastructure building (yes China is hypocritical here while it builds it doesn't wish India to build up here) and increased patrolling which arguably is brought on by China's military build up within the 80% and the road from F8 to F4. So it is pretty clear that China's aim is to ensure the 20% doesn't end up in India's hands and to get India away from building within it and patrolling within it. This hasn't been achieved but in response to India having presence within this 20% still, PLA is also present. Only Pangong standoff is resolved and I suspect it was agreed to by India simply because it was getting too heated for Modi while his opponents were raising the issue non stop despite the situation of standoff being relatively similar with other parts. Now those political opponents have moved to focusing on the other keywords like Depsang, Gogra, Hot springs, and Galwan.
 
Last edited:

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
This situation is now so abundantly clear even India figures are candidly exposing and talking about it, albeit infrequently.

If China wanted the 20%, they'd take it and there'd be nothing India could militarily do. It would just be diplomatically stupid and a useless move by China. It would also put into risk what it's been working for and building up while earning it nothing in return except for a bit more barren land. Don't forget that China already controlled the 80% of the historic legacy dispute and has so for 60 years.

In fact, China took it unilaterally and forced India to commit to a partial resolution because the situation became politically humiliating for Modi that he had to cooperate on Pangong disengagement (while pathetically dressing it up as Indian victory despite agreeing to China's terms) while the remaining standoff has no resolution. This standoff is detrimental to China and certainly to India. China has next to nothing to gain for flaring things up and risking the progress it has made. India risks very little and has everything to lose if it loses access to the entire 20% because that means losing their entire legacy claim which includes Aksai Chin.

Jai Hind bhakts have been beaten down at every development and the last refuge is actually claiming this thing was instigated by China and India has won simply because it thwarted a non-existent Chinese attempt to shift LAC further westward forgetting that China took control of it for 9 months and then created a buffer in return for India vacating and guaranteeing it will not step into the disputed land at this particular part (Pangong lake). The theory is stupid because it makes no sense. Even if this is the objective, this isn't the smarted way to approach it and even if this stupid military way is used, China would be foolish to risk western theatre against potentially the entire India army and airforce which is hours away as opposed to China's core military which is days away.

Again let's be mindful that this place is barren, has no strategic importance to China outside of one tiny part of BRI and even that can reroute further north. I mean BRI doesn't absolutely require Ladakh or even Ladakh stability from any Indian military action. It has no resources and it is uninhabited currently with sparse historic use by anyone. It isn't worth risking anything over for China but it is worth putting a stop to what it considered increased Indian movements in the form of mirror infrastructure building (yes China is hypocritical here while it builds it doesn't wish India to build up here) and increased patrolling which arguably is brought on by China's military build up within the 80% and the road from F8 to F4. So it is pretty clear that China's aim is to ensure the 20% doesn't end up in India's hands and to get India away from building within it and patrolling within it. This hasn't been achieved but in response to India having presence within this 20% still, PLA is also present. Only Pangong standoff is resolved and I suspect it was agreed to by India simply because it was getting too heated for Modi while his opponents were raising the issue non stop despite the situation of standoff being relatively similar with other parts. Now those political opponents have moved to focusing on the other keywords like Depsang, Gogra, Hot springs, and Galwan.
Let us be clear, China will not give up an inch of her rightful sacred territory to anyone.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Let us be clear, China will not give up an inch of her rightful sacred territory to anyone.

Taiwan is sacred to China. Hong Kong is sacred to China. I'm sorry but the very edge of a never before demarcated borderline of Tibet is not quite as sacred. Rightful maybe but not sacred. Let's remind ourselves that China has willingly ceded land to smaller neighbours (with no means of challenging China). China's lost vast land from Russian expansion in the 19th and 20th centuries.

China at the moment is unwilling to allow India even patrol access to the 20% (albeit both are within it) like India used to between 1962 and 2019. If China is okay with Indian patrolling the last remaining 20%, there would be no difference to how it was before this standoff. It is for whatever reasons China has decided it cannot allow India to continue mirroring China's own building up and conducting their patrols.

Now consider it from India's perspective. China controlled 80% of the legacy dispute after the 1962 war. That's fair because both disputed it and it was administered under Tibet and is rightfully China's as Tibet is an integral and sovereign part of the PRC regardless of how any one person feels about things. Tibet was a part of China before the Chinese Revolution, before the Chinese Civil War, before the Cultural Revolution and was administered under the communists after they won. Tibet was and is a part of China therefore any part of Tibet is a part of China of which this particular stretch of Ladakh almost certainly is (Aksai Chin) BUT the exact borderlines having never been properly demarcated in known and recorded history (China's and Britain's). India didn't even exist as a country and the word "India" was the equivalent of the words "Latin America"... it never denoted a sovereign state until after independence in the 20th century.

Having said that, India the country has long lost the 80% of this legacy dispute and because this border was never demarcated in Tibetan and Chinese history, it is unsurprisingly disputed. India claims all 100% of the disputed land and China since 1962 has had military installations and infrastructure built up in the 80% that China controls. India correctly understands it is being overwhelmed in this dispute and it is well behind. If it has any intention of getting anything from it, it cannot afford to NOT act somewhat "aggressively" and at least mirror build up on its own side at least ... you know within India proper, just like China has built up in the 80% which India still claims. China being uncomfortable with that is understandable but surely not surprised by it. They can't seriously expect India to give up right?

This brings us to the recent history of escalating border confrontations since 2013. China wishes India to stay out of all of the dispute while it keeps controlling the 80%. India understandably wants to make moves on capturing at least that remaining stretch and even increased patrols resulted in such drastic action from China. The message being sent to India is that China cares about that remaining 20% and won't let India even patrol it let alone think about building within it. This takes us to the current standoff where Pangong lake may be disengaged into a buffer as per China's wishes but India remains inside this 20% everywhere else and refuses to agree on converting it into a buffer, against China's wishes. They won't move and China certainly won't start a war over it.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
I think the Indian air marshall forgot their jet got shot down and their IAF pilot got captured by PAF. And the Indian miltary panicked shot down its own helicopter.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Considering that their former air chief BS Dhanoa stated that the J-20 is fake LO and can easily be spotted by Su-30MKI radars from "kilometers away"...

E4jeDT2.jpg


On a serious note one thing that the J-20 doesn't lack is training versus Sukhoi platforms. Whether it be MKKs or domestic variants like J-11B/J-16, the dragon doesn't lack practice.
 

SteelBird

Colonel
I think the Indian air marshall forgot their jet got shot down and their IAF pilot got captured by PAF. And the Indian miltary panicked shot down its own helicopter.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Rafale is good at operating at 50,000 feet which roughly translated into 15,000 meters. I just wonder, can't J-20 operate at this attitude?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top