Ladakh Flash Point

twineedle · Aug 9, 2021

ougoah said:
They lost their patrol points but that land was never theirs. Creation of buffer similar to what was accepted by India with Pangong disengagement seems to indicate the entire Ladakh stand off areas i.e. remaining disputes, will be resolved into a buffer situation. Once that happens India cannot patrol within the 20% remaining dispute and therefore would have no access to Aksai Chin. They can claim it all they like so Modi doesn't get his head on a platter by the hardcore Hindu nationalists but they can't take Aksai Chin if they can't even set foot on a stretch of buffer land between India proper and Aksai Chin.

Most of the area involved in the latest disengagement wasn't patrolled by India. As has been discussed multiple times, the patrol points mark the limit of Indian patrols, and are often a few km short of India's perception of the LAC. In this case, the patrol point involved(17A) is located towards the western edge of the buffer zone. So it's not like India was patrolling the majority of the gogra bulge. And just like in other areas of differing perceptions, China would also patrol the area to assert its perceived LAC, which in Gogra lies at the confluence of the Kugrang and Changlung. Prior to the disengagement, there was an Indian camp around pp17a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And if India were to hypothetically attempt to get back Aksai Chin(which is not going to happen), it wouldn't attempt to do so in a sector like Hot Springs, where it is at a natural disadvantage compared to the PLA.

ougoah · Aug 10, 2021

twineedle said:
Most of the area involved in the latest disengagement wasn't patrolled by India. As has been discussed multiple times, the patrol points mark the limit of Indian patrols, and are often a few km short of India's perception of the LAC. In this case, the patrol point involved(17A) is located towards the western edge of the buffer zone. So it's not like India was patrolling the majority of the gogra bulge. And just like in other areas of differing perceptions, China would also patrol the area to assert its perceived LAC, which in Gogra lies at the confluence of the Kugrang and Changlung. Prior to the disengagement, there was an Indian camp around pp17a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And if India were to hypothetically attempt to get back Aksai Chin(which is not going to happen), it wouldn't attempt to do so in a sector like Hot Springs, where it is at a natural disadvantage compared to the PLA.

It's difficult to discuss these things when you simply feel like you must frame this as some Indian victory when it is anything but.

India did patrol this stretch of land. It is called Patrol Point 17 by the Indians for a reason. India wanted to control the 20%. They made a move on it in Jan 2020. Are these not facts?

Why is it that when India loses access to certain areas, immediately it becomes a "we were never there so we haven't lost anything nah nah nah" routine?

It doesn't really matter how Indians perceive the matter. Perception we know if of the highest importance to Jai Hind crowd which is why they ALWAYS be the only ones talking about "war of perception".

Another issue with your post is you called Aksai Chin a part of India in the past (bold). Aksai Chin was never a part of India. This is another fact. Tibet in any and all its forms in the entire history of homo sapiens, was never a part of India even if we take the very liberal definition of pre British India. Saying India getting back Aksai Chin is as stupid and senseless as China saying getting back Australia because Chinese text and sailors mentioned something that might be Australia before European settlement there.

We will see if India maintains positions north of Gogra and Galwan so that they have a channel of access to Aksai Chin. The rest have become a buffer zone. If India is agreeing to buffer in those places, their insistence of keeping presence within 20% for Aksai Chin access would not be surprising but at the same time, sealing Aksai Chin off from India through the entire stretch becoming a buffer is also where China wants to take matters. Previously I thought India would maintain positions around Gogra and Hot Springs but admittedly agreeing to buffer in exchange for disengagement does not mean India will leave northern sections. If they leave, that's it for Aksai Chin, India could not cross the buffer to ever patrol it unless they break agreements.

twineedle · Aug 10, 2021

ougoah said:
It's difficult to discuss these things when you simply feel like you must frame this as some Indian victory when it is anything but.

India did patrol this stretch of land. It is called Patrol Point 17 by the Indians for a reason. India wanted to control the 20%. They made a move on it in Jan 2020. Are these not facts?

Why is it that when India loses access to certain areas, immediately it becomes a "we were never there so we haven't lost anything nah nah nah" routine?

It doesn't really matter how Indians perceive the matter. Perception we know if of the highest importance to Jai Hind crowd which is why they ALWAYS be the only ones talking about "war of perception".

Another issue with your post is you called Aksai Chin a part of India in the past (bold). Aksai Chin was never a part of India. This is another fact. Tibet in any and all its forms in the entire history of homo sapiens, was never a part of India even if we take the very liberal definition of pre British India. Saying India getting back Aksai Chin is as stupid and senseless as China saying getting back Australia because Chinese text and sailors mentioned something that might be Australia before European settlement there.

Like I said, it has been discussed many times, the patrol points mark the limits of Indian patrols. In this case the patrol point in the dispute is pp17A. I already showed you the location of that patrol point. Indian patrols do not go beyond that point. And by your logic, China had been patrolling that area as well for many decades, so it lost access to the area. The buffer zone even includes a part of Aksai Chin which does not fall within India's perception of the LAC.

Perceptions are important, since differing perceptions of the LAC are the reasons why there are disputes. All of the standoff areas are in places where India and China have differing perceptions of the LAC.

You clearly missed my point about Aksai Chin, but from the Indian point of view, India claims all areas that were claimed or controlled by the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.

And who told you that India "made a move" in Jan 2020? Indian sources have frequently reported that India cancelled exercises in the beginning of last year to avoid spreading covid. It was China that diverted troops from its annual winter exercises towards the LAC.

ougoah · Aug 10, 2021

twineedle said:
Like I said, it has been discussed many times, the patrol points mark the limits of Indian patrols. In this case the patrol point in the dispute is pp17A. I already showed you the location of that patrol point. Indian patrols do not go beyond that point. And by your logic, China had been patrolling that area as well for many decades, so it lost access to the area.

Perceptions are important, since differing perceptions of the LAC are the reasons why there are disputes. All of the standoff areas are in places where India and China have differing perceptions of the LAC.

You clearly missed my point about Aksai Chin, but from the Indian point of view, India claims all areas that were claimed or controlled by the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.

No you did not actually show any limits of Indian patrols. Again you cannot see patrols through Google earth. You have made empty proclamations to keep the idea that India never patrolled beyond certain points based on what one or two politically motivated Indian soldiers have said in public. We simply do not know how each side patrols in detail. No amount of civilian access satellite photos from undisclosed dates show live troop movement. None of them can even show humans so how are you performing this magic? Tents do not indicate patrols. I don't need to draw a Venn diagram of how this logic works hopefully.

The fact is, Pangong buffer deal is being repeated in Gogra. What remains is all the northern stretches that are the last remaining channels of access India has to Aksai Chin. Previously I thought India would refuse to turn Gogra into a buffer but they have. Having said that, India remains in the northern stretches still.

They (both) still have presence in a stretch of land that is directly adjacent to Aksai Chin so to China this still isn't good enough. China's aim is to either demarcate according to more or less its 1959 offer to India. India's aim is to get control of the 20%. Neither of those are happening since the other side simply will not allow that so to China the next best thing is create a buffer between India proper and Aksai China, turning the land between India proper/China's perception of LAC/ China's 1959 (more or less the same thing) and China's current line of de facto control (main map's blue line) into a buffer. This seals India off from Aksai Chin completely.

Both are within the northern sections still because one wants to maintain position, the other wants India off and create a buffer out of it just like Pangong and Gogra, achieving its secondary goal of 1. sealing Aksai Chin off from India and 2. making sure India cannot step foot and patrol the 20% dispute which is adjacent to Aksai Chin.

India is in there because once a buffer status agreement is reached, they are sealed off and they cannot patrol to gain some de facto control over the 20%. This is the factual present status and situation in a nutshell. I previously thought India will insist on keeping positions within 20% at least now keeping it in northern section, China is there with some minimal positions to make sure India does not try and find some sort of unilateral de facto control over the half that still isn't a buffer.

Thanks for clearing up your point about claiming J&K claimed lands. That's a claim upon a claim upon a claim. Literally three levels - Pak India dispute, J&K claim, then India China dispute.

ougoah · Aug 10, 2021

Even previously pro Modi and Indian nationalist figures are becoming more aware of how this conflict is developing. Modi will be able to turn this into a PR neutral thing and maybe even proclaim it as India stopping China's advance again even though China reacted, captured territory and disengaged after India agreed on buffer disengagement deals... all pointing towards China being reactionary, having the ability to do as it sees fit without India being able to even confront militarily, and not wishing to inflame this border when it has much better things to do especially when it was trying to contain the new pandemic in Jan 2020.

Modi will be able to keep his PR victory while China quietly settles it with India and make this entire 20% a buffer, keeping it out of Indian de facto control and managing to seal off Aksai Chin from being adjacent to Indian patrols. This for China is the next best thing after being able to demarcate along its 1959 compromise offer. India achieved zero of its strategic goals and desires. Failed to get any control of Aksai Chin, failed to gain any form of even semi control of remaining 20% dispute, and failed to even secure future access to 20% for patrolling.

Indian nationalists only have their make belief story of Indians managing to kill 40 to 100+ Chinese soldiers with one Indian superman killing 12 with his bare hands. While India itself doesn't even claim this for fear of embarrassment if the Chinese side decides to show more photo and video evidence showing everyone just how full of shit India is. India formally claims 20+ killed by China, China claims Indians lost 20+ to exposure and no Indian effort to rescue while 5 Chinese soldiers were killed by Indians in cold blood and a few of them succumbing to injuries of the fight after. Well only China has presented video and photo evidence showing Indians lied about not being equipped and lied about how many of theirs were there. China also somehow captured dozens of Indians while the Indians captured zero PLA that night. I think the Indians did lose command and direction, some ran off, some fell into the river, and some did die from exposure. How else would China have captured and rescued so many Indians to return in the following week?

twineedle · Aug 10, 2021

ougoah said:
No you did not actually show any limits of Indian patrols. Again you cannot see patrols through Google earth. You have made empty proclamations to keep the idea that India never patrolled beyond certain points based on what one or two politically motivated Indian soldiers have said in public. We simply do not know how each side patrols in detail. No amount of civilian access satellite photos from undisclosed dates show live troop movement. None of them can even show humans so how are you performing this magic? Tents do not indicate patrols. I don't need to draw a Venn diagram of how this logic works hopefully.

The fact is, Pangong buffer deal is being repeated in Gogra. What remains is all the northern stretches that are the last remaining channels of access India has to Aksai Chin. Previously I thought India would refuse to turn Gogra into a buffer but they have. Having said that, India remains in the northern stretches still.

They (both) still have presence in a stretch of land that is directly adjacent to Aksai Chin so to China this still isn't good enough. China's aim is to either demarcate according to more or less its 1959 offer to India. India's aim is to get control of the 20%. Neither of those are happening since the other side simply will not allow that so to China the next best thing is create a buffer between India proper and Aksai China, turning the land between India proper/China's perception of LAC/ China's 1959 (more or less the same thing) and China's current line of de facto control (main map's blue line) into a buffer. This seals India off from Aksai Chin completely.

Both are within the northern sections still because one wants to maintain position, the other wants India off and create a buffer out of it just like Pangong and Gogra, achieving its secondary goal of 1. sealing Aksai Chin off from India and 2. making sure India cannot step foot and patrol the 20% dispute which is adjacent to Aksai Chin.

India is in there because once a buffer status agreement is reached, they are sealed off and they cannot patrol to gain some de facto control over the 20%. This is the factual present status and situation in a nutshell. I previously thought India will insist on keeping positions within 20% at least now keeping it in northern section, China is there with some minimal positions to make sure India does not try and find some sort of unilateral de facto control over the half that still isn't a buffer.

Thanks for clearing up your point about claiming J&K claimed lands. That's a claim upon a claim upon a claim. Literally three levels - Pak India dispute, J&K claim, then India China dispute.

The reason why the patrol points were created by the China Study Group is to mark the limits of Indian patrols in the border areas. And while you cannot obviously see patrols, you can see where India has built a road in the area. Notice where it stops.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You can also see to where China's road extends. If anything, in terms of area "lost." it is China that "lost" more territory based on the areas patrolled by both sides.

Patrol points have already been explained and discussed multiple times in this thread. By now it should also be clear that Indian soldiers don't patrol right up to India's perception of the LAC, the pps are usually a few kilometers from the LAC.

The line from which India and China withdrew in 1962 is called the Colombo line, which is shown on Google. However, there are several areas where one or both countries has a perception of the LAC that is different from the Colombo Line. In Gogra, India recognizes the Colombo line as the LAC, but China believes it is at the confluence of Kugrang and Changlung. That is why there is a standoff.

twineedle · Aug 10, 2021

ougoah said:
Even previously pro Modi and Indian nationalist figures are becoming more aware of how this conflict is developing. Modi will be able to turn this into a PR neutral thing and maybe even proclaim it as India stopping China's advance again even though China reacted, captured territory and disengaged after India agreed on buffer disengagement deals... all pointing towards China being reactionary, having the ability to do as it sees fit without India being able to even confront militarily, and not wishing to inflame this border when it has much better things to do especially when it was trying to contain the new pandemic in Jan 2020.

Modi will be able to keep his PR victory while China quietly settles it with India and make this entire 20% a buffer, keeping it out of Indian de facto control and managing to seal off Aksai Chin from being adjacent to Indian patrols. This for China is the next best thing after being able to demarcate along its 1959 compromise offer. India achieved zero of its strategic goals and desires. Failed to get any control of Aksai Chin, failed to gain any form of even semi control of remaining 20% dispute, and failed to even secure future access to 20% for patrolling.

Indian nationalists only have their make belief story of Indians managing to kill 40 to 100+ Chinese soldiers with one Indian superman killing 12 with his bare hands. While India itself doesn't even claim this for fear of embarrassment if the Chinese side decides to show more photo and video evidence showing everyone just how full of shit India is. India formally claims 20+ killed by China, China claims Indians lost 20+ to exposure and no Indian effort to rescue while 5 Chinese soldiers were killed by Indians in cold blood and a few of them succumbing to injuries of the fight after. Well only China has presented video and photo evidence showing Indians lied about not being equipped and lied about how many of theirs were there. China also somehow captured dozens of Indians while the Indians captured zero PLA that night. I think the Indians did lose command and direction, some ran off, some fell into the river, and some did die from exposure. How else would China have captured and rescued so many Indians to return in the following week?

You yourself have said that India is still within what you call the 20%. For example, the area between the bottleneck and Burtse is part of the 20%, which is still occupied and patrolled by India. And even in Galwan China officially said the entire valley is part of China. Does that make it part of the 20%? Because india still has camps there.

And of course, Demchok and Chumar are also part of that 20%, and India has permanent camps there as well. In fact, if India were to hypothetically launch a serious attempt at capturing Aksai Chin, it would make more strategic sense to do so through the South, rather than the northern standoff areas.

ougoah · Aug 10, 2021

twineedle said:
The reason why the patrol points were created by the China Study Group is to mark the limits of Indian patrols in the border areas. And while you cannot obviously see patrols, you can see where India has built a road in the area. Notice where it stops.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
You can also see to where China's road extends.

Patrol points have already been explained and discussed multiple times in this thread. By now it should also be clear that Indian soldiers don't patrol right up to India's perception of the LAC, the pps are usually a few kilometers from the LAC.

The line from which India and China withdrew in 1962 is called the Colombo line, which is shown on Google. However, there are several areas where one or both countries has a perception of the LAC that is different from the Colombo Line. In Gogra, India recognizes the Colombo line as the LAC, but China believes it is at the confluence of Kugrang and Changlung. That is why there is a standoff.

Yes they don't often patrol up to their claim lines within that 20%... since the rest is Chinese control. I am not arguing this.

I am saying China doesn't want India to even have the option of patrolling. Not a matter of how frequently they patrol up to what point. Indians do patrol up to claim lines on occasion surely. We know they did perform patrols within the 20% right? Well China wants that to stop being the case with the entire thing a buffer, it seals off Aksai Chin by an entire layer of land AND it prevents Indians from patrolling that layer of land.

This is the nature of the current negotiations for sure. India wants to keep access so they currently still have presence in the northern section that hasn't been disengaged and turned into a buffer. China no doubt wants that to end and Indian troops out. China has a token presence within this stretch just like they did within Gogra area before disengagement, in order to present token military presence opposition while the negotiations are ongoing. If India chooses to re-engage other sections that have become a buffer, China will put more troops in. If India expands presence within this last remaining northern stretch, China already has token presence and will also expand that. Meanwhile diplomatic negotiations have China pushing India towards leaving the remaining northern section to set up a buffer but India probably will refuse because they lose access and they will no longer have access to land that is adjacent to their claim - Aksai Chin.

ougoah · Aug 10, 2021

twineedle said:
You yourself have said that India is still within what you call the 20%. For example, the area between the bottleneck and Burtse is part of the 20%, which is still occupied and patrolled by India. And even in Galwan China officially said the entire valley is part of China. Does that make it part of the 20%? Because india still has camps there.

And of course, Demchok and Chumar are also part of that 20%, and India has permanent camps there as well. In fact, if India were to hypothetically launch a serious attempt at capturing Aksai Chin, it would make more strategic sense to do so through the South, rather than the northern standoff areas.

What don't you understand? India was present everywhere in the 20% until Pangong became occupied by PLA and then a buffer was agreed to by India, now Gogra is a buffer. Only remaining place Indian troops are present in is the northern sections of this 20% (should call it 10% now since the other 10% is a buffer more or less you get what I mean).

Some parts are occupied by India still like parts of Galwan. China also has token (fewer troops and equipment) presence in the remaining non-buffer parts of the 20%. India's presence is being eroded and turned into buffer.

China also has permanent camps in Demchok. India isn't getting the full 20% that's for sure. It still has presence within some parts, it had more presence and access two years ago. Now China and India's diplomatic talks are ongoing right? So clearly the situation isn't resolved to China's preference and no doubt China wants India totally out of 20%, they might allow some token presence in order for Modi to show some face but India has not only lost the 80% legacy dispute, it has lost parts of the 20% to buffer status, and both are still negotiating for India to lose even more of the 20% they have presence in.

The commiseration for India is that none of this was ever Indian land! It could be argued as J&K land but that's a dispute in itself. India doesn't own J&K anyway! J&K itself is a dispute within itself lol. Thanks to the British and religious division on three sides, this stuff has admittedly been troublesome before the Brits but made much worse after.

twineedle · Aug 10, 2021

\

ougoah said:
What don't you understand? India was present everywhere in the 20% until Pangong became occupied by PLA and then a buffer was agreed to by India, now Gogra is a buffer. Only remaining place Indian troops are present in is the northern sections of this 20% (should call it 10% now since the other 10% is a buffer more or less you get what I mean).

Some parts are occupied by India still like parts of Galwan. China also has token (fewer troops and equipment) presence in the remaining non-buffer parts of the 20%. India's presence is being eroded and turned into buffer.

China also has permanent camps in Demchok. India isn't getting the full 20% that's for sure. It still has presence within some parts, it had more presence and access two years ago. Now China and India's diplomatic talks are ongoing right? So clearly the situation isn't resolved to China's preference and no doubt China wants India totally out of 20%, they might allow some token presence in order for Modi to show some face but India has not only lost the 80% legacy dispute, it has lost parts of the 20% to buffer status, and both are still negotiating for India to lose even more of the 20% they have presence in.

The commiseration for India is that none of this was ever Indian land! It could be argued as J&K land but that's a dispute in itself. India doesn't own J&K anyway! J&K itself is a dispute within itself lol. Thanks to the British and religious division on three sides, this stuff has admittedly been troublesome before the Brits but made much worse after.

If by presence you mean patrols, then both sides had presence in the areas of disengagement. And as you yourself have admitted, India still has patrols and permanent camps in other disputed areas. In some areas like Galwan, India actually has a bigger presence than it did before 2020.

Ladakh Flash Point

twineedle

Junior Member

ougoah

Brigadier

twineedle

Junior Member

ougoah

Brigadier

ougoah

Brigadier

twineedle

Junior Member

twineedle

Junior Member

ougoah

Brigadier

ougoah

Brigadier

twineedle

Junior Member