Ladakh Flash Point


ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
The reason why both sides reached a disengagement deal was because China dropped its initial conditions of "equidistant disengagement'" which would have required India to completely leave the finger area, in the fall.
This is what China had been demanding in earlier talks.

For some reason, China dropped its conditions between the 5th and 6th round of talks. Exactly why is debateable.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There were also no major clashes in fall/winter of 2020, at least not according to any reputeable sources

India denied pulling back its forces further because it already pulled back. China demanded India pull back twice while China only disengaged a forward position.

You can summarise it this way if the line is in the centre, China went a step forward. India remained in same, China swapped its step forward in exchange for India taking a step back and agreeing to not patrol beyond the step back it took. Then China demanded India step back again and India refused because it already lost two important things - 1. Its original position and 2. agreeing to not patrol and step within the disputed... something it was doing prior to China taking the step forward.

The net effect is China remains in original position (prior to everything) while India is a step behind and lost patrolling rights which it was doing MUCH more than China to the point of it worrying China so much that it responded with military force.

all of those photos were from Galwan, where disengagement occurred in July 2020.

Yeah the photos and videos released by China were said by the leakers (state endorsed) to be from June 2020 and prior to that, as I've mentioned in my post if you read it.

The question I was raising was that in light of hints emerging that there were violent clashes in October/November of 2020 which resulted in "significant Indian losses" and two PLA killed, makes you wonder if those photos released for June clashes were some sort of warning to the Indian side that details of late 2020 clashes may be revealed by China. This goes back to my previous posts about Chinese side having extracted all the benefits out of leveraging forward positions to secure buffer agreements out of India. Since we know that agreements were made in December 2020, since then, China's had no more leverage to secure any further buffer that can seal off Aksai Chin. We haven't heard any progress for further buffer deals and every demand China has made since extracting its leverage has been met with Indian refusal. I theorised before that China's strategy post securing two sets of limited buffer from India, is by opening AP front and pressuring Modi through providing his political oppositions with anti-Modi material. The issue with that Modi's replacement may be more difficult to settle disputes with.
 

twineedle

Junior Member
Registered Member
India denied pulling back its forces further because it already pulled back. China demanded India pull back twice while China only disengaged a forward position.

You can summarise it this way if the line is in the centre, China went a step forward. India remained in same, China swapped its step forward in exchange for India taking a step back and agreeing to not patrol beyond the step back it took. Then China demanded India step back again and India refused because it already lost two important things - 1. Its original position and 2. agreeing to not patrol and step within the disputed... something it was doing prior to China taking the step forward.

The net effect is China remains in original position (prior to everything) while India is a step behind and lost patrolling rights which it was doing MUCH more than China to the point of it worrying China so much that it responded with military force.



Yeah the photos and videos released by China were said by the leakers (state endorsed) to be from June 2020 and prior to that, as I've mentioned in my post if you read it.

The question I was raising was that in light of hints emerging that there were violent clashes in October/November of 2020 which resulted in "significant Indian losses" and two PLA killed, makes you wonder if those photos released for June clashes were some sort of warning to the Indian side that details of late 2020 clashes may be revealed by China. This goes back to my previous posts about Chinese side having extracted all the benefits out of leveraging forward positions to secure buffer agreements out of India. Since we know that agreements were made in December 2020, since then, China's had no more leverage to secure any further buffer that can seal off Aksai Chin. We haven't heard any progress for further buffer deals and every demand China has made since extracting its leverage has been met with Indian refusal. I theorised before that China's strategy post securing two sets of limited buffer from India, is by opening AP front and pressuring Modi through providing his political oppositions with anti-Modi material. The issue with that Modi's replacement may be more difficult to settle disputes with.
I think you are a bit confused. That article was from July 2020, befpre disengagement happened at Pangong, and before both sides pulled back. For 5 rounds of talks indoa was asking China to move back to its original position, China said not unless india also moved back 4 fingers. Hence the first 5 rounds acheived no progress at Pang ong.

Obviously, something changed thatvled to China removing that condition, and disengagement was achieved. Now both sides are at their original positions, with India at DST and China at Sirjiap behind Finger 8.

Prior to 2020, China was patrolling fingers 4-8 far more than India, and had even built a road to finger 5. Now it cannont go beyond Sirjiap or use the road it built after India forced China to withdraw.

And no credible Indian or Chinese source such as Global times said anything about a major clash in fall last year.
 
Last edited:

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
I notice Indian members portraying selective parts of events and intentionally ignoring or omitting the important details.

India refused to pull back ..... even more, AFTER it pulled back and signed buffer agreements.

The whole game is about Aksai Chin. Occupying it is not enough, controlling it is also not that great, for China only sealing Aksai Chin off from being adjacent to India is enough to be considered a completion of the dispute. For India it wants the same but it does not control it. The contest is over AC from the beginning to the point China raised claims for AP because India insisted on claiming AC.

China controlled AC after 1962 war but has not managed to seal it off from India - being adjacent to and hence potentially patrolled by India since India still claims AC.

If India agrees to a total, complete buffer of the thin pieces of land around, it loses AC. This has been China's effort since December 2020. India refuses because China has nothing to offer after swapping a forward position on Pangong Lake for two small sets of buffers and India stepping back from their original positions. This is the current stalemate.
 

twineedle

Junior Member
Registered Member
I notice Indian members portraying selective parts of events and intentionally ignoring or omitting the important details.

India refused to pull back ..... even more, AFTER it pulled back and signed buffer agreements.

The whole game is about Aksai Chin. Occupying it is not enough, controlling it is also not that great, for China only sealing Aksai Chin off from being adjacent to India is enough to be considered a completion of the dispute. For India it wants the same but it does not control it. The contest is over AC from the beginning to the point China raised claims for AP because India insisted on claiming AC.

China controlled AC after 1962 war but has not managed to seal it off from India - being adjacent to and hence potentially patrolled by India since India still claims AC.

If India agrees to a total, complete buffer of the thin pieces of land around, it loses AC. This has been China's effort since December 2020. India refuses because China has nothing to offer after swapping a forward position on Pangong Lake for two small sets of buffers and India stepping back from their original positions. This is the current stalemate.
India's original permanent position prior to the standoff was dhan Singh Thapa(Finger 3). China initially wanted India to vacate it in exchange for disengagement, which India refused. That condition was lifted later

The article I posted earlier was from before the pang ong buffer was agreed to.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
I think you are a bit confused. That article was from July 2020, befpre disengagement happened at Pangong, and before both sides pulled back. For 5 rounds of talks indoa was asking China to move back to its original position, China said not unless india also moved back 4 fingers. Hence the first 5 rounds acheived no progress at Pang ong.

Right okay. Yeah India refused that because its demand was way too much. It's asking everything from India for no price. Of course it refused to. That doesn't make India tough lol. That would be like India asking Pakistan to give the entire land over to India for ... nothing and then Pakistan refusing. Big whole lot of nothing but of course the whole point of the article is to make it sound like India is supa or something.

What is important is that a buffer was agreed to by India. Of course India got something out of that as well which was China disengaging those forward positions at Pangong Lake which pretty much took the entire disputed stretch at the Lake fingers. This was a nothing burger for China but was politically humiliating for Modi. The only reason I can think of for Modi to agree to the buffer demand.


Obviously, something changed thatvled to China removing that condition, and disengagement was achieved. Now both sides are at their original positions, with India at DST and China at Sirjiap behind Finger 8.

With India slowly losing access to Aksai Chin and going from patrolling "dozens of times" more than China to zero patrols. The original cause of the standoff - increasing Indian patrols that was at least concerning enough for China to suspect India wanted de facto control of the no-mans land which improves its positions on claiming Aksai Chin.

And no credible Indian or Chinese source such as Global times said anything about a major clash in fall last year.

No official source has said anything about any violent clashes in late 2020 only hints and rumours ... like I mentioned in my post.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
India's original permanent position prior to the standoff was dhan Singh Thapa(Finger 3). China initially wanted India to vacate it in exchange for disengagement, which India refused. That condition was lifted later

The article I posted earlier was from before the pang ong buffer was agreed to.

And the offered demarcation since the 1960s have been around Finger 4. A whole finger east of Finger 3 which was really always on India's side. When did China ask India to vacate Dhan Singh Thapa? I missed that briefing report.
 

twineedle

Junior Member
Registered Member
Right okay. Yeah India refused that because its demand was way too much. It's asking everything from India for no price. Of course it refused to. That doesn't make India tough lol. That would be like India asking Pakistan to give the entire land over to India for ... nothing and then Pakistan refusing. Big whole lot of nothing but of course the whole point of the article is to make it sound like India is supa or something.

What is important is that a buffer was agreed to by India. Of course India got something out of that as well which was China disengaging those forward positions at Pangong Lake which pretty much took the entire disputed stretch at the Lake fingers. This was a nothing burger for China but was politically humiliating for Modi. The only reason I can think of for Modi to agree to the buffer demand.




With India slowly losing access to Aksai Chin and going from patrolling "dozens of times" more than China to zero patrols. The original cause of the standoff - increasing Indian patrols that was at least concerning enough for China to suspect India wanted de facto control of the no-mans land which improves its positions on claiming Aksai Chin.



No official source has said anything about any violent clashes in late 2020 only hints and rumours ... like I mentioned in my post.
You are right. There was eventually a buffer. The point is that the buffer was signed because China removed some demands that India found unreasonable, not because of any clash in late 2020 as you were speculating.

And before the 2020 standoff, China was patrolling the stretch between fingers 4-8 far more than India, as clarified by Col. Dinny, who served there. Now China cannot even patrol past Sirjiap. There are of course some other disputed areas where India was and still is patrolling far more than China.

The reason why China removed those demands after insisting on them for five rounds of talks is also debateable.
 
Last edited:

twineedle

Junior Member
Registered Member
And the offered demarcation since the 1960s have been around Finger 4. A whole finger east of Finger 3 which was really always on India's side. When did China ask India to vacate Dhan Singh Thapa? I missed that briefing report.
In the first 5 rounds of talks.
As you said, china doesn't just want india to vacate disputed areas, it wants to create a buffer zone between the LAC and its claim, and China's claim OS at finger 2. So China probably wanted a buffer between the LAC(Finger4) and the chinese claim, finger 2
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
You are right. There was eventually a buffer. The point is that the buffer was signed because China removed some demands that India found unreasonable, not because of any clash in late 2020 as you were speculating.

The speculation I made on the rumours of late 2020 clashes (which were only mentioned as "Reqin intrusions" back in Oct/Nov 2020) were made with caveats mentioning that it could have contributed to India's signing of buffer. Not that India needed more reason to sign buffer since Pangong Lake headlines were absolutely devastating Modi and giving his opposition so much ammunition for various forms of political attacks.

In the first 5 rounds of talks.
As you said, china doesn't just want india to vacate disputed areas, it wants to create a buffer zone between the LAC and its claim, and China's claim OS at finger 2. So China probably wanted a buffer between the LAC(Finger4) and the chinese claim, finger 2

China knows it won't get up to Finger 2. China offered to demarcate along Finger 4 (more or less) many times from the 1950s until 1990s. India knows it won't get Aksai Chin but it claims it anyway. China claims up to Finger 2 so that India can make it seem like accepting a Finger 4 demarcation is a "good deal".

It's basically a haggling strategy lol. Low balling and vice versa. We both know China's claim to Finger 2 is about as intentional as India's claim of Aksai Chin.

Anyway I was asking for some evidence that China demanded India move back 4 fingers from Finger 4. That would mean China asked India to move to west of Finger 1 in exchange for China only disengaging from four finger deep forward positions it occupied.
 

Top