In a few words pl -
Whats the reason for the recent ladakh clash ? You presented modi but he met xi 19 times as PM to cement ties.
No beating about the bush. Straight answer or dont waste any more bandwidth.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Whats the reason for the recent ladakh clash ? You presented modi but he met xi 19 times as PM to cement ties.
No beating about the bush. Straight answer or dont waste any more bandwidth.
He will say that India started. Indian sources are saying that India had cancelled its deployment at the time because of covid, and China diverted troops from its exercise areas. Like I said, most members will believe the Chinese side of the story.In a few words pl -
Whats the reason for the recent ladakh clash ? You presented modi but he met xi 19 times as PM to cement ties.
No beating about the bush. Straight answer or dont waste any more bandwidth.
Yes, we obviously all have biases, including myself. Though it's safe to say that as a whole, this forum would lean towards the Chinese side of the arguement. An example is with the claim that Aksai Chin was never part of india, even though the Indian perspective is that it was part of the Jammu and Kashmir princely state, who's maharajahs acceded to India. That is the basis of India's claim. Most members here would go with the claim that Aksai Chin was historically ruled by china in some way, which means it and parts of Ladakh are rightfully Chinese. I am not saying this is a bad thing, I am simply trying to tell @tallgamer that on these subjective debates, it should be expected that most members here take China's side.
Aksai Chin never being a part of India was my personal position, not that of the forum's although I would bet the vast majority would consider it that way.
Despite holding this position, I believe this forum is far more sane and sensible than the Indian ones. Certainly much, much less rude and racist. Any unbiased person can visit DFI and barat rakshak to see for themselves. I should also say we are far more factual and reasonable as well. Of course Tallgamer would prefer everyone held the same position and beliefs as they do. Reminds me of the Redeffect vs Alpha defense argument. Jai Hinds cannot tolerate any position that they don't like hearing. Fuck the facts. Over here we are mostly still factual and reasonable. You will not see many if any members saying stupid shit like China greater than USA we can screw and destroy USA and rape their women! like you would in the Indian forums. Well not without being ridiculed and corrected.
As for bias, the political bias here is self evident. But we are not delusional. We don't say our PLA heros killed 20000 Indus but Indu cowards could only admit to 20+. We don't say stupid things like we shot down an enemy fighter when it clearly didn't happen. There are thousands of more suitable examples but I think you get the point.
More on topic, I agreed with you on every occasion that India and China do not see eye to eye on Aksai Chin and each others claims. I mention this frequently. If this were an Indian forum, the member saying well China claims Aksai Chin because it is a part of Tibet and that's where China's claim is from, we would be met with anger and total dismissal along with sprinklings of fairly intense direct racism. We'd be called bat eating gooks who copied everything including language from the Japanese who are the only high and mighty east Asians lol I've read plenty of those posts. Grand delusions at every scale and in every domain.
Again Aksai Chin from China's claim is because it is considered by China to be a part of Tibet which is China. No less than California being a part of the USA and no longer a part of Mexico. India's claim is that Aksai Chin is a part of J&K which has majority parts disputed between Pakistan and India along with some Kashmiris who would prefer neither and had historic precedence for self determination agreed to by India.
In a few words pl -
Whats the reason for the recent ladakh clash ? You presented modi but he met xi 19 times as PM to cement ties.
No beating about the bush. Straight answer or dont waste any more bandwidth.
Read the thread. It's been explored at least 100 times now and each member's perspective and input have also been repeated many times.
Can you explain the consequences of the French Revolution in a few words? I get you need things simple and you jump in heat at trigger points with simple responses as well but please try to either read in silence then comment with inputs that are rational or refrain from this sort of worthless posting.
He will say that India started. Indian sources are saying that India had cancelled its deployment at the time because of covid, and China diverted troops from its exercise areas. Like I said, most members will believe the Chinese side of the story.
This conflict in Ladakh goes back 70 odd years. We've been here before.
The recent developments from Jan 2020 were indeed started by India. That would be my position. Your position and theory is that China started this recent development because China wanted to shift LAC westward correct?
As expected everything under the sun except a simple answer to what caused the death of 5... Chinese and 20 Indian soldiers ?
Countries have unending claims but in the 21st century to try to occupy land under these ancient claims is not normal behavior.
Would be similar to India attacking Pakistan to claim the Pakistan occupied kashmir part .
Or japan and the Russians going to war over their conflicting claims on the islands.
Its China which is vigorously pursuing a expansionist agenda on the ground. Not inly in ladakh but also in the south China sea , etc.
Countries have unending claims but in the 21st century to try to occupy land under these ancient claims is not normal behavior.
Would be similar to India attacking Pakistan to claim the Pakistan occupied kashmir part .
Or japan and the Russians going to war over their conflicting claims on the islands.
Its China which is vigorously pursuing a expansionist agenda on the ground. Not inly in ladakh but also in the south China sea , etc.
As expected everything under the sun except a simple answer to what caused the death of 5... Chinese and 20 Indian soldiers ?
Countries have unending claims but in the 21st century to try to occupy land under these ancient claims is not normal behavior.
Would be similar to India attacking Pakistan to claim the Pakistan occupied kashmir part .
Or japan and the Russians going to war over their conflicting claims on the islands.
Its China which is vigorously pursuing a expansionist agenda on the ground. Not inly in ladakh but also in the south China sea , etc.
What caused the death of the soldiers during the June 15th fights?
Indian soldiers led by Colonel Babu attacked a PLA site where there were Chinese construction crews. They wanted to stop the construction and considered it poorly defended. There were barely any people at the site itself during the evening of the 15th. PLA then reinforced it with equal or more soldiers as the Indian group were tearing down constructions. Whether this was an ambush or not who knows. PLA certainly has observation platforms in the region and many dozens of Indian soldiers would light up sensors. Fighting ensued, result as claimed by both sides is 20 Indian soldiers died from injuries and exposure as they dispersed (Chinese account) and 20 Indian soldiers died from being killed by PLA (Indian account).
The first reports said 4 or 5 indians dead then 10 then 20 then 20+ ("at least 20") then officially back to 20. This was announced more than a day after the event.
China says the Indians became extremely disorganised and many fell into the river and off rocks. India did not send any effort to restore command. It also did not rescue their men. PLA collected undisclosed (said to be in dozens) numbers of Indian soldiers and returned them in the following week on separate occasions. PLA kept the senior officers and returned them last. The colonel and another senior officer were either executed by PLA after or killed during the fight.
These are the things we know that have been officially stated and agreed with bilaterally and we even had leaks of gruesome photos showing Indian senior officers. We have a few clips of PLA returning Indian captives as well as they step onto trucks.
Why did the fighting happen? Well India may or may not have commanded Colonel Babu into action but into action he went with a sizeable group of soldiers. We don't know what the intentions were but in March to May (uncertain of actual date at least I am not), Indian soldiers dragged out a PLA communication officer from his armoured vehicle (Indian account) and beat him in a crowd of Indian soldiers. China's account on that matter was the PLA officer exited his vehicle to communicate with the group of Indian soldiers who then attacked him. Possibly killed him I'm personally not sure about this maybe someone can clear that up. There was a video from Indian soldiers on this event and Jai hinds celebrated this violence. There have been plenty of precedence of lethal violence so June fight on the 15th would have both sides on alert. But we do know the fighting occurred at or near a PLA construction site.
As for the historic reasons for the wider causes of Ladakh crisis, there are plenty of posts in this thread that explore them.
Now who made moves on who in Jan 2020. I have said in the past that I believe both sides have been building the tension in this region as both consider it part of their land. The political and military tensions have gone up since Doklam crisis, gone up along with the mistrust.
India wants 100% just like China. China already control the 80%. in Jan 2020 the remaining 20% was not controlled by either side. Indian leaders thought Jan 2020 would be a good time to make some increased patrols and presence within this 20% while China was very busy with the detected covid outbreak. Thinking they would have no resistance from China since they are really just doing patrols. China responded by its own patrols and build up incl constructions in response and there were confrontations of pushing and shoving between Jan 2020 and May 2020. PLA occupied Pangong fingers 8 to 4 at this point in time. Indian leaders were lost for initiative and from May to June not much happened until the 15th, that was the height of violence during this conflict.
Since the 15th of June, Indian leaders considered occupying land that is south of Pangong Lake in an effort to gain bargaining power. Since PLA has occupied some stretches within the 20%, India will too and will be able to negotiate from better position.
Negotiations went on, Indian occupation of southern parts were drive out IF they went further than black top and helmet top peaks. If the didn't, then they did not manage to occupy anything east of the LAC anyway. Either way, Indian final position south of the lake was west of black top peak and helmet top peak.
India wants 100% just like China. China already control the 80%. in Jan 2020 the remaining 20% was not controlled by either side. Indian leaders thought Jan 2020 would be a good time to make some increased patrols and presence within this 20% while China was very busy with the detected covid outbreak. Thinking they would have no resistance from China since they are really just doing patrols. China responded by its own patrols and build up incl constructions in response and there were confrontations of pushing and shoving between Jan 2020 and May 2020. PLA occupied Pangong fingers 8 to 4 at this point in time. Indian leaders were lost for initiative and from May to June not much happened until the 15th, that was the height of violence during this conflict.
Since the 15th of June, Indian leaders considered occupying land that is south of Pangong Lake in an effort to gain bargaining power. Since PLA has occupied some stretches within the 20%, India will too and will be able to negotiate from better position.
Negotiations went on, Indian occupation of southern parts were drive out IF they went further than black top and helmet top peaks. If the didn't, then they did not manage to occupy anything east of the LAC anyway. Either way, Indian final position south of the lake was west of black top peak and helmet top peak.
Now a clear headed review of motivations, who started the first move? that's a chicken or egg question. In Jan 2020, the circumstances and situation if not "started" by India would be "started" by China right? Both answers are correct in their own way but the important note would be to realise that whoever is assigned as the "starter", started the recent Ladakh confrontation in response to what they considered unacceptable. For China it was unacceptable that India would be increasing patrols and presence on the disputed 20% in Jan 2020. For India it was unacceptable that China controls the 80% (Aksai Chin) which India's Home Affairs Minister Amit Shah and PM Modi both are on record claiming are sacred parts of India and India would pay with blood to "regain" them.
Now ask yourself. Is it more likely that India would make moves on the 20% disputed that remains given the political circumstances and the fact that they want at least a slice of the legacy dispute. They have nothing much to lose anyway right? Cursed by Indians if they make big statements for elections and then doing nothing. Even a small conflict with China has little at risk. Lives of Indian soldiers aren't worth half a damn for these politicians given Indians soldiers commit suicide more than the rest of the world's combined due to their conditions. Indian politicians do nothing to stop loss of lives that are common place for Kashmir and Pakistan conflicts.
What has China got to gain by taking the remaining 20%? During a phase of its history when the present circumstances are working so well for it. When it has so much American led attention on it. China farts and the western media talks about diarrhea for a month. Why would China inflame a dispute it has been doing nothing with for 50 odd years? Leaving it as, almost never making patrols, and been offering buffer deal and compromise demarcation deals with India for so long? And if for some reason China did want to control the remaining 20% with a might is right attitude (which Indians actually hold - Kashmir) why would it win the battle and then disengage? Why would China capture Pangong lake fingers and Galwan forward positions for 9 months and then disengage if their aim was to capture? Because Indians are scary and super strong? Well even if we assume that is the case, why would PLA expect the Indians to not resist? You're asking me to believe that China only went in expecting zero resistance from Indians and as soon as scary strong Indian soldiers make a show, we will disengage? Well how come we stayed for 9 months then?
Indian narrative does NOT add up, and fails spectacularly. Chinese one is at least plausible.
Now ask yourself. Is it more likely that India would make moves on the 20% disputed that remains given the political circumstances and the fact that they want at least a slice of the legacy dispute. They have nothing much to lose anyway right? Cursed by Indians if they make big statements for elections and then doing nothing. Even a small conflict with China has little at risk. Lives of Indian soldiers aren't worth half a damn for these politicians given Indians soldiers commit suicide more than the rest of the world's combined due to their conditions. Indian politicians do nothing to stop loss of lives that are common place for Kashmir and Pakistan conflicts.
What has China got to gain by taking the remaining 20%? During a phase of its history when the present circumstances are working so well for it. When it has so much American led attention on it. China farts and the western media talks about diarrhea for a month. Why would China inflame a dispute it has been doing nothing with for 50 odd years? Leaving it as, almost never making patrols, and been offering buffer deal and compromise demarcation deals with India for so long? And if for some reason China did want to control the remaining 20% with a might is right attitude (which Indians actually hold - Kashmir) why would it win the battle and then disengage? Why would China capture Pangong lake fingers and Galwan forward positions for 9 months and then disengage if their aim was to capture? Because Indians are scary and super strong? Well even if we assume that is the case, why would PLA expect the Indians to not resist? You're asking me to believe that China only went in expecting zero resistance from Indians and as soon as scary strong Indian soldiers make a show, we will disengage? Well how come we stayed for 9 months then?
Indian narrative does NOT add up, and fails spectacularly. Chinese one is at least plausible.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.