Ladakh Flash Point

Abhimanyu said:

The trajectory as I see in coming few days Is that India will grow closer to US which I think will be useful for us. We may not have the previous relation with China anymore. However, most Indians will still like to peacefully resolve issues with China and be friends if things improve. It is a fact that China is more powerful than India in both economic and military terms.

Click to expand...

I don't know why do you think India getting closer to the USA at the expense of China is going to be useful to India. Let me give you a list of non-Western countries that have at some point in their history, have had a close relationship with the USA. You can judge how many of them had lived "happily ever after":

1) Russia
2) China
3) Iran
4) Cuba
5) Iraq
6) Vietnam *Hint: Check Vien Minh-era.
7) Israel*
8) Japan *Success? Think again!
9) Turkey
10) Afghanistan
11) Pakistan

India is welcomed to join that list. India can think it can be a success like Israel. But because Indians have never appeared in the Bible. Be prepared to be disappointed.

I have a better idea for India:

1) Sit down and talk to China. Cut a deal to demarcate the border. If India negotiates in good faith, China might feel a little generous.
2) Build trust and sign deals with China. It'll be a win-win deal for India.
3) After India and China settles on a normal working relationship. Only then approach America. China doesn't sanction other countries for doing business with the USA.
4) Why have only one market: USA? When you can have both USA and China? Hedge on either China and USA to get better trade deals from each one of them. Just don't cheat or play games with either one of them.
6) If India must choose a side. China is the best choice. Because China is the future, while America is the past. But more importantly, China won't be trying to subjugate India and meddle in its internal matters.

India getting closer to the USA right now, and practically severing ties with China can only lead to one thing. The surrendering of India to be vassalized by the USA. India now has almost zero leverage to negotiate better deals with the US. India is now allowing itself to be manipulated by a known imperial power. Because it wants some kinda protection against a local great power? Sounds familiar?

Also, please don't bring up Russia. Russia has neither the market nor the momentum to be a true alternative to US or China. Russia may be India's good friend, but Russia won't go into any hot or cold war with China or the USA just for India. Not happening ever. And that's the hard truth for India.

Sardaukar20 said:

I don't know why do you think India getting closer to the USA at the expense of China is going to be useful to India. Let me give you a list of non-Western countries that have at some point in their history, have had a close relationship with the USA. You can judge how many of them had lived "happily ever after":

1) Russia
2) China
3) Iran
4) Cuba
5) Iraq
6) Vietnam *Hint: Check Vien Minh-era.
7) Israel*
8) Japan *Success? Think again!
9) Turkey
10) Afghanistan
11) Pakistan

India is welcomed to join that list. India can think it can be a success like Israel. But because Indians have never appeared in the Bible. Be prepared to be disappointed.

I have a better idea for India:

1) Sit down and talk to China. Cut a deal to demarcate the border. If India negotiates in good faith, China might feel a little generous.
2) Build trust and sign deals with China. It'll be a win-win deal for India.

Click to expand...

Sardaukar20 said:

I don't know why do you think India getting closer to the USA at the expense of China is going to be useful to India. Let me give you a list of non-Western countries that have at some point in their history, have had a close relationship with the USA. You can judge how many of them had lived "happily ever after":

1) Russia
2) China
3) Iran
4) Cuba
5) Iraq
6) Vietnam *Hint: Check Vien Minh-era.
7) Israel*
8) Japan *Success? Think again!
9) Turkey
10) Afghanistan
11) Pakistan

India is welcomed to join that list. India can think it can be a success like Israel. But because Indians have never appeared in the Bible. Be prepared to be disappointed.

I have a better idea for India:

1) Sit down and talk to China. Cut a deal to demarcate the border. If India negotiates in good faith, China might feel a little generous.
2) Build trust and sign deals with China. It'll be a win-win deal for India.
3) After India and China settles on a normal working relationship. Only then approach America. China doesn't sanction other countries for doing business with the USA.
4) Why have only one market: USA? When you can have both USA and China? Hedge on either China and USA to get better trade deals from each one of them. Just don't cheat or play games with either one of them.
6) If India must choose a side. China is the best choice. Because China is the future, while America is the past. But more importantly, China won't be trying to subjugate India and meddle in its internal matters.

India getting closer to the USA right now, and practically severing ties with China can only lead to one thing. The surrendering of India to be vassalized by the USA. India now has almost zero leverage to negotiate better deals with the US. India is now allowing itself to be manipulated by a known imperial power. Because it wants some kinda protection against a local great power? Sounds familiar?

Also, please don't bring up Russia. Russia has neither the market nor the momentum to be a true alternative to US or China. Russia may be India's good friend, but Russia won't go into any hot or cold war with China or the USA just for India. Not happening ever. And that's the hard truth for India.

Click to expand...

1. What do you think India and China are doing right now? India and China have regularly been holding talks on border protocols for the past dlfew decades, that's why there are dedicates border personell meeting points at Chushul and Moldo. And demarcation of the LAC is the long term goal for India, but China has refused to do so without India ceding Tawang.
2. India and China have previously signed border deals and confidence building me the US asures, including not to deploy large numbers of troops and equipment to the lac.

Also, India has a trade surplus with the US, but a trade deficit with China. So the US market is more profitable for India than the Chinese market.

Demarcation of LAC is the long term goal for both but as much as China wants Tawang, India wants all of Aksai Chin. So it is India who refuses to demarcate at the moment because it wants an extra 100 times as much land as China currently wants.

It is ridiculous to suggest it is India who wants to demarcate. India will not settle for 1959 offer given by China. India has made it clear it wants Aksai Chin and hasn't yet compromised on its claims. China may release Tawang from Chinese claims but I VERY much doubt India would accept a demarcation where Tawang is given to India but India does not get control of anything east of the blue line.

So how could India possibly want to demarcate?? China is seeking demarcation as it has been since 1950s. India refuses to demarcate unless it gets everything disputed. China has consistently compromised on claims but India refuses. It is China who would prefer demarcation near or around blue line since blue line is miles and miles and miles and miles and miles from the eastern border of Aksai Chin. There is no way China would give up on what is rightfully part of Tibet, hence part of China.

ougoah said:

Demarcation of LAC is the long term goal for both but as much as China wants Tawang, India wants all of Aksai Chin. So it is India who refuses to demarcate at the moment because it wants an extra 100 times as much land as China currently wants.

It is ridiculous to suggest it is India who wants to demarcate. India will not settle for 1959 offer given by China. India has made it clear it wants Aksai Chin and hasn't yet compromised on its claims. China may release Tawang from Chinese claims but I VERY much doubt India would accept a demarcation where Tawang is given to India but India does not get control of anything east of the blue line.

Click to expand...

Actually, India in the past has offered to gove up claims to Aksai Chin in exchange for China dropping claims to Arunachal. China agreed to drop claims to the rest Arunachal, but not Tawang since it argued Tawang was the most Tibetan part of Arunachal.

Also, @ougoah , you have repeatedly said China is fine with India occupying what you call "India's side of the disputed 20%," yet China's initial conditions for disengagement in Pangong Tso were different, as described in this article. I am pretty sure DST is on the Indian side of the dispute, as you have previously described.
Of course, China dropped that demand by around the 6th round and accepted India's demand of status quo ante at Pangong.(Whether something happened between the 5th and sixth round that facilitated this is moot), and a more agreeable deal to both sides was reached.

Let's make it clear, if India is seeking demarcation and is happy to go with LAC or something very much close to what we have as current LAC, with the only condition it wants to have Tawang, then China has been offered 95% of its claims while India has lost 99% of India's claims.

Do you think India is currently making the above deal?? No, this is sort of the 1959 offer (but not really except the differences are relatively minor compared to Indian claims). India didn't accept it then and isn't accepting it now. Both sides are at standoff because they can't come to an agreement and there is simply no way India is seeking 1959 deal!

China may have offered another demarcation deal similar to its 1959 offer which is similar (much more so compared to claims) to LAC. Or it is offering some buffer solution which India may take because it opens the opportunity for settlement in future and allows India to maintain its formal claim on Aksai Chin. Demarcating means total and certain loss of Indian claims.

India is probably thinking about the politics, particularly the internal one and unsure of whether to make a deal or continue a standoff where it places a lot of troops and need to support them. China has barely the same amount of troops or equipment but feels India will not be invading unless they want a hot war. Indian politicians won't have a plan b or z when the PLA come around. Modi and co know their heads will roll one way or another so stalemate is their best option for now and playing internal narratives to appease and deflect opposition efforts at criticising them.

India is seeking outside assistance. It is not working on demarcating. It is stuck between a shit choice, a terrible choice, certain loss, and ceding. There is no solution here for it and so it is looking outwards to see where the Quad is headed and how the global game is playing out.

twineedle said:

Actually, India in the past has offered to gove up claims to Aksai Chin in exchange for China dropping claims to Arunachal. China agreed to drop claims to the rest Arunachal, but not Tawang since it argued Tawang was the most Tibetan part of Arunachal.

Click to expand...

Yes but that's not the bargain China accepted wrt Tawang. China played ball and compromised but it drew the line at Tawang.

twineedle said:

Also, @ougoah , you have repeatedly said China is fine with India occupying what you call "India's side of the disputed 20%," yet China's initial conditions for disengagement in Pangong Tso were different, as described in this article. I am pretty sure DST is on the Indian side of the dispute, as you have previously described.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I think you are mistaken. Show me where I have stated this. I'm fairly certain you misread or misrepresented this. I have always been saying that China is "fine" as in it is accepting the fact that India is currently inside the 20% disputed as China is in opposition to India being inside. China doesn't want India in the 20%. It is fine with it like India is fine with China being in the 20%. Neither want the other inside the 20% but both are currently "fine" with it as in they are not shooting at the other for being within the remaining dispute.

I said both are within the 20% with presence and positions that change. That is all. It is a comment on the situation. Perhaps you have assigned some point or subtext to that?

China asks India to pull back behind what China claims like India asks China to pull back behind what India claims. That's a piece of non-news and operating at an entirely different level to our discussions on this forum. It is akin to politics paying lip service to the situation.

ougoah said:

Let's make it clear, if India is seeking demarcation and is happy to go with LAC or something very much close to what we have as current LAC, with the only condition it wants to have Tawang, then China has been offered 95% of its claims while India has lost 99% of India's claims.

Do you think India is currently making the above deal?? No, this is sort of the 1959 offer (but not really except the differences are relatively minor compared to Indian claims). India didn't accept it then and isn't accepting it now. Both sides are at standoff because they can't come to an agreement and there is simply no way India is seeking 1959 deal!

China may have offered another demarcation deal similar to its 1959 offer which is similar (much more so compared to claims) to LAC. Or it is offering some buffer solution which India may take because it opens the opportunity for settlement in future and allows India to maintain its formal claim on Aksai Chin. Demarcating means total and certain loss of Indian claims.

India is probably thinking about the politics, particularly the internal one and unsure of whether to make a deal or continue a standoff where it places a lot of troops and need to support them. China has barely the same amount of troops or equipment but feels India will not be invading unless they want a hot war. Indian politicians won't have a plan b or z when the PLA come around. Modi and co know their heads will roll one way or another so stalemate is their best option for now and playing internal narratives to appease and deflect opposition efforts at criticising them.

India is seeking outside assistance. It is not working on demarcating. It is stuck between a shit choice, a terrible choice, certain loss, and ceding. There is no solution here for it and so it is looking outwards to see where the Quad is headed and how the global game is playing out.

Click to expand...

You are forgetting that in that proposed deal, China would give up the rest of Arunachal(and some parts of Uttarakhand and Himachal), which is a far bigger area. almost 90k km vs 38k km for Aksai Chin.

Tawang has cultural significance to both China and India as the birthplace of the 5th Dalai Lama and home to the 2nd largest Tibetan monastery in the world. Obviously this deal did not go through, because India is not willing to cede Tawang.

I agree that any deal like that will not go through though, since today's climate of Indo-Sino relations is very different from the 80s and 70s. I also agree that India has been much more polarized politically, so it will be harder for India to officially give up Aksai Chin.

twineedle said:

You are forgetting that in that deal, China would give up the rest of Arunachal(and some parts of Uttarakhand and Himachal), which is a far bigger area. almost 90k km vs 38k km for Aksai Chin.

Tawang has cultural significance to both China and India as the birthplace of the 5th Dalai Lama and home to the 2nd largest Tibetan monastery in the world. Obviously this deal did not go through, because India is not willing to cede Tawang.

I agree that any deal like that will not go through though, since today's climate of Indo-Sino relations is very different from the 80s and 70s. I also agree that India has been much more polarized politically, so it will be harder for India to officially give up Aksai Chin.

Click to expand...

China considers Tibet to be a part of it. Modern PRC can be viewed in some ways as a collection of nations like India can be. Whatever is or was a part of Tibet, and Tawang certainly is to the Chinese and Tibetans (who are Chinese by definition of the word, not playing semantics), is a part of PRC. Tibet has been a part of "China" since the early 1700s. When China was weak, in civil war and invaded, foreign powers buy off politicians and finance separatism. Warlords and political cliques also want to seize power and break away with their cut. This happens all over the world and throughout history but it doesn't make it right. In any case, China today isn't the ROC of the 20th century or Imperial China before that and will not cede Tibetan land to India particularly when India is acting as antagonist (causality take as you would).

It would be immensely difficult for Modi to publicly reveal he has given up formal claim of Aksai Chin. He'd be far safer in Pakistan than he would in India if he were to do such a thing. Regardless of the history of deals and offers etc for swaps. Which is why the situation is a stalemate with China not paying quite as much troops or equipment as India but is building airfields in case of future flare up. China has no interest in war with India. You can be sure of that but it certainly will play it by ear at this point. Its main focus is to maintain all its major projects and x year plans. Settling these two borderlines with India is surely a part of some plan but they seem to demand military solutions which China isn't willing to do. Its thinking surely is the same as the thinking of the CCP members who "delayed" this disagreement with India - develop and leave it to the future because the future will have better tools and minds to deal with such a problem.

Now why China insists here is a bit puzzling to me. As in it has concluded disputes and has ceded territory to others (bigger and smaller nations at the time). Maybe it is as simple as India claiming far into Tibet and the history of Tibetan exiles going to India and India's history with the Dalai Lama. Maybe it's also geopolitical and a bit more long term strategising.

I doubt India had any intention to go to war with China even if we assume there are some foreign hands in play as well. If India had intention for war, it would have gone to war.

The same for China. It had no intention for war and taking its claims by force. If China had the intention to take all its claims by force, it would have done that.

China says this situation flared up because India patrolled too much and showing too much development and presence within the remaining dispute in the Ladakh side. India says the opposite. Truth is somewhere in between since both have been building towards it. One of India's previous four star generals did admit that India patrolled far more than China did and China barely showed presence.

If China's story is correct, India's motivation seems to have been to gain some de facto control of 20% using presence and frequency of patrols. This was, according to China, at its peak during the end of 2019 and early 2020, right when Covid hit China hardest. Perhaps the thinking in India was at least partly from the assumption that China is extremely distracted and will not act or respond.

If India's story is correct, why would China achieve part of the objective and then stop? If the aim is to shift LAC westward to China's claim lines, why not just do it? There is no way China would have assumed there would be no Indian opposition and so a war would be inevitable. I personally doubt this narrative. I think if the story and motivation is correct, the reason would far more likely have been some hidden pressure placed on China or warnings from US for example but I very much doubt that. SCS and islands are far more concerning for the US than a few stretches of rocks in Ladakh. If the US is disregarded by China in SCS, what would some words about Ladakh amount to?

China's pattern is to formally say something like "this isn't right and is a move against our interests" and then acts in response. The message is just a formality. Like all nations often do with "warnings" and expressions of dissatisfaction. They are done as formal expression of concern and so if and when a reaction is administered, the explanation and diplomatic history is there on record. With such a hypothetical, it is quite unlikely the US had any formal and open interaction in this drama. Hidden interactions are probably suspected by China.