Talk:Sino-Indian War

Some points may be worth considering

I have refrained myself from editing this article because, being an Indian, I might have a certain POV towards this conflict and might not be able to write an unbiased account of the war. However, from different sources, I have come across certain information which might be worth considering -

1. India had some kind of military co-operation treaty with Tibet before the annexation by the PLA. (Did it contribute anything to the war?)
2. India had supported PRC to be given the UN seat instead of the Nationalist China (Taiwan).
3. The then Indian Prime Minister, Nehru had actually entered in to a Panchsheel (five policies for peaceful co-existence) with China.
4. India had a forward policy, which led to direct confrontation with China.
5. PRC decisively won the battle and could have captured much more than what it chose to retain.
6. Also can someone do a comparison between the IAF and the Chinese Air Force during that time? As I have come across numerous articles from defence experts, that India could have had a more favourable outcome had it chosen to use the Air Force.

Shovon 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to 1 yes India post Colonel Young Husband's Lhasa expedition had and after the lapse of British Paramountancy the treaty would have been transferred to India, unlike the position that is claimed by Chinese i.e. one of it lapsing in 1947 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.165.98 (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to bring to your notice "India has never attacked any other country in its know history for the last 5000 years". This article seems to be written by a Chinese Extremist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.195.137 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Battle of 1962 versus the War that is continuing today

- ;) Just like China got CREAMED by the Japanese ..;)  ? or - Like China got CREAMED by the Vietnamese in 1979 ?? :) ? - ;) Just like the way tiny Tibet is taking on China just now ?

We can go on insulting each other - or try to resolve the issue

Fact of the matter is India did lose the 1962 battle . There can be many explanations. but Bottom line China was prepared and India was not ( arrogance of the then Indian Govt is definetly one of the reasons)

Lets talk about the consequences of 1962 and the situation as it stands NOW

Now - India and China are extremely far apart and are poised directly against each other (the existence of the above arguments by so may prove this point) Now - India is every day ready for a war with China - thanks to 1962 (so is that progress?) Now - India developed and deployed nukes against China Now - People of India have a strong understanding and support Tibet....... thanks to 1962.

India has maintained the Tibet card and using it to slowly pin prick China - and will continue to do so. Is China better of since 1962 ?? ( if not for 1962 - would this have happened?) The Free Worlds opinion is against China right now.

India lost the battle of 1962 - but the War seems to be in India's favor at the moment.

First, China did NOT get creamed by the Vietnamese. Second, the fact that China got creamed by the Japanese during WW2 has nothing to do with this article.

No one is insulting each other. This is an enclyclopedia on a historic event.

User

"The Free Worlds opinion is against China right now. " The existence of whatever "free world" bullshit is controversial at first not to mention whose opinion is against whom.

"Is China better of since 1962 ?? ( if not for 1962 - would this have happened?)" China's 3rd manned space mission to carry out spacewalk is scheduled on late 2008 and expecting a space station be launched after this. It test lauched ASAT weaspon successfully long ago. Where is India's ASAT? All I heard of is some Indian official claiming it is something well within their current capability with just a little enchancement of their current technology.

"Now - People of India have a strong understanding and support Tibet" sadly, most who are outside China and claim they understand Tibet are only those hypocritical individuals who know how to use Tibet as a political card against China. None of them really care for the well being of the Tibetan nor contribute a cent to the development of the Tibet region. On the contrary, highways, hospitals/public health care, public education, thriving Tourism industry are tiny examples of the things that the Chinese govt made to the Tibet region. Something didn't exist at all during the day of Dalai Lama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.214.62.38 (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

BeyRel|BeyRel]] (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Location of Aksai Chin

Looking at a map of the area (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/China_India_western_border_88.jpg), it seems to me that the current description of the region's location is misleading:

   "...the Aksai Chin region, an area the size of Switzerland, that sits between the 
   Chinese provinces of Tibet and Xinjiang."

The description of the region's location on the Wikipedia Aksai Chin page reads as follows:

   "Aksai Chin is a region located at the juncture of China, Pakistan, and India." 

Would not both be better replaced by something like

   "... [a disputed region lying] between India and China ..." or 
   "... [a disputed region lying] between China and India ..."?

Incidentally, I'm neither Indian nor Chinese; I'm Dutch-Canadian.

Heavenlyblue (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources for solution

Quotes from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"McMahon Line." Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008:

Delegates of the Chinese republican government also attended the Simla Conference, but they refused to sign the principal agreement on the status and boundaries of Tibet on the ground that Tibet was subordinate to China and had not the power to make treaties. The Chinese maintained this position until the frontier controversy with independent India led to the Sino-Indian hostilities of October–November 1962. In that conflict the Chinese forces occupied Indian territory south of the McMahon Line but subsequently withdrew after a ceasefire had been achieved.

"Arunāchal Pradesh." Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008:

After the independence of India in 1947, China made claims to practically the whole area covered by the districts of East and West Kāmeng, Lower and Upper Subansirī, East and West Siang, and Lohit, arguing that the McMahon Line had never been accepted by China and was the result of British “aggression.” In letters to the Indian prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, the Chinese prime minister, Zhou Enlai, quoted a map in the 1929 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica showing the disputed territory as Chinese, with the boundary following the alignment of Chinese maps. Some Chinese maps before 1935 showed the North East Frontier Agency (Arunāchal Pradesh) as part of India, and since then as part of Tibet. The Survey of India (1883) showed the disputed tribal areas as de facto administered by British India. British and Indian maps since 1914 have usually followed the McMahon Line. If the Chinese claims were allowed, the Indian-Chinese border would follow roughly the margin of the Assam plain, a frontier almost impossible to defend. Following this dispute, Chinese troops crossed the McMahon Line on August 26, 1959, and captured an Indian outpost at Longju, a few miles south of the line. They abandoned this in 1961 but in October 1962 crossed the line, this time in force. After first striking toward the Tanglha ridge and Tawang near the Bhutan border, the Chinese later extended their attack along the whole frontier. Deep inroads were made at a number of points. Later the Chinese agreed to withdraw approximately to the McMahon Line and in 1963 returned Indian prisoners of war.

Play nice now, Goring 53 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with the whole "border dispute" theory of the war, although the current version of the article states this as if it was a simple fact. The territory that is supposedly being disputed is almost worthless. India presented the McMahon Line to Zhou in 1954, and China did not object. Mao was always looking to stir up a war or crisis somewhere because that was his style. Why India? Mao felt humiliated when Nehru gave the Dalai Lama asylum in 1959. China took several years to prepare the offensive against India. This is a documented fact because during the buildup period, the Chinese sent military supplies to Tibet through Calcutta, right under the noses of clueless Indian customs agents. So the reasons for the war pre-date both the Dhola issue and the forward policy. The Chinese withdrew when they ran out of supplies, even though that meant returning the disputed territory to India. Kauffner (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Kauffner, what on earth are you talking about? Could you cite your sources? If the Chinese ran out of supplies, then how on earth could the Indians be any better at getting their own supplies to the area? Mao couldn't care less where the dalai went; he allowed dalai to leave and had him shadowed to the Chinese border, as he 'escaped'. And Kauffner, are you inferring that the Indians are a bit dim-witted? 86.161.56.118 (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The territory is almost worthless but people dispute over less. India rejected the McMahon line. They tried to insist on it and when they saw that the legal claim was weak they opted to argue that the watershed was the traditional border and so made an argument based on past usage. The war started when India began moving soldiers beyond the MM line to the watershed. To assert that the Chinese planned the War is a-historic as far as I can see. Mao did not go around starting wars because of he felt humiliated. He did not even do so despite the fact the Indians were supporting Tibetan guerillas. The Chinese did not withdraw because of a lack of supplies. They withdrew to the border they wished to have and which India would not accept - the McMahon line. In the end the war is about the border. Lao Wai (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This article by the author of the official Indian history of the war makes a convincing case that China planned its offensive against India well in advance, although the stuff at the end about the Cuban missile crisis strikes me as a bit speculative. If China planned from the beginning to withdraw from the disputed territories, that suggests the motivation was something other than territory. Mao liked to keep China in a permanent state of crisis and this a reoccuring theme in his foreign policy -- think of Zhenbao Island, a dispute that nearly led to a Sino-Soviet nuclear war in 1969. Kauffner (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Mao in all honesty did like to keep his country in a permanent state of crisis, but put in perspective his actions were much less harsh than the permanent crises the USA and Britain entertain the world with. The Indians are greedy and totally biligerent. Even the Indian name for the area means China as the word 'Chin' is Hindi for China. Given the geographic place names given in the article are Sino-tibetan, the Indians have no cause to believe the area was Indian. The Indians simply wanted to annex anywhere they wanted to and to treat Chinese as if it were Goa. Unfortunately for the Indians they picked the wrong people to mess around with. 86.161.56.118 (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP 86.161.56.118 you have no right to use the offensive sentences like "Indians are greedy and totally biligerent". I think u meant to say "belligerent". No wonder you have limited knowledge of history, culture and facts similar to your limited knowledge of language use and rebuttals. Even the provocative language used by you in above sentence seems more belligerent to me :). So please first improve your way of thinking and hostile behaviour before coming to discuss sensitive issues at international platforms. Try to do some research before coming to early conclusions. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Systemetsys (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)]] comment added by Systemetsys (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Military Victory

The 1962 war saw the worst defeat suffered by the Indian army. Still some editors are putting Military victory for India in the article. Please stop this. This is nothing but denial of your own history. Shovon (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have great admiration for the Indian people. They are great doctors, dentists, scientists, lawyers and so and so on. But the Indian military can never defeat the Chinese military on Chinese soil. 86.161.56.118 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

From the looks of it, they couldn't do so on Indian soil either :) Ah but times change...TheBlueKnight (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

what great doctors lawyers and so on? indians r the laziest mofos i have never met. Everybody at my work hates their lazy stinking ass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.13.143 (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

the Background: China suffered Three Years of Natural Disasters, severe starve

Why a lot of researchers ignor the backgound of China in that war: the Three Years of Natural Disasters(1959-1961)? In that period, Chinese met 3-year-long great famine and severe financial crisis. This disaster induced millions, even more, died in starvation or undernourish.

In the summer of 1962, the Chinese Kuomintang troops in Taiwan exercised large scale mobilization attempt to counter attack and recovery the mainland. The corresponding military actions of the People's Liberation Army of China were concentration and maneuver almost all 10 first-class combat-readiness infantry divisions and several fighter division of PLAAF into Fujian Province to meet enemy head-on. This was called "Urgent combat readiness in South-east Coastal (1962)" in Chinese modern military history.

Another important international background was the Cuba Missile Crisis in the same period. Mao Zedong was good at exploiting the world situations when he made import decisions, e.g. when the PLA launched the 823 Artillery Bombardment in 1958 against the Kuomingtang troops in Kinmen Island, Americans, the Kuomingtang's main ally, were involving the 1958 Lebanon crisis. This action is regarded a pride and exhibition of military-political intelligence of Mao's in China. ligand (ligand) 15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

because the famine has NOTHING to do with the war, stop trying to add irrelevant pieces of information.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

According your logic, the Great Depression has NOTHING to do with World War II? That the main origins of the wars. ligand (ligand) 5:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

no what im saying is that user is obviously anti chinese and somehow thinks the famine would be an indian military victory......ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is some (indirect) relation. the pressue on China from the famine and Taiwan deemed that China would like to avoid a war as much as it could, and is part of the reason for the final withdrawal to the pre-war LAC.

Unverified Claims and Peacock Terms

I wish to make the following edits but I wish invite discussions before that. Here is what I propose to do

- Delete the following texts in the Aftermath section:

India's military became increasingly well-trained and potent. In the 1960s and 70s, India allied with the Soviet Union to encircle China. The continued military modernisation in India led to a change in the military equation between the two countries, where India were earlier far outnumbered and lacked experience. This was evidently successful, as India achieved military gains over Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and 1999 and now maintains the third largest military in the world.

This paragraph contains either unverified claims or claim that are of questionable relevence to the subject. Its purpose appears to be one of vindicating India's defeat in the 1962 war rather than providing objective information.

- Move the following texts from the Diplomatic Process section to the Ceasefire section

In 2001, there were reports that India had actually taken two prisoners during the war, Yang Chen and Shih Liang. They were not released at the conclusion of the war. Instead, the two were imprisoned as spies for three years before being interned in a mental asylum in Ranchi, where they spent the next 38 years under a special prisoner status. After their case was reported on by local journalists, the Indian government took actions to release them. After the Chinese government investigated the case, it lobbied for the release of the two men. Both men, now well into their 60s, have since been reunited with their families in Sichuan.[78] The Government of India has since issued a clarification that the men were not PoWs.[79]

Comments & discussions please?

--BeyRel (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to User:Colliver55

Hi, the paragraph which you had removed (not edited, as claimed by you) goes like this -

"India's military became increasingly well-trained and potent. In the 1960s and 70s, India allied  
with the Soviet Union to encircle China. The continued military modernisation in India led to a 
change in the military equation between the two countries, where India were earlier far 
outnumbered and lacked experience. This was evidently successful, as India achieved military gains 
over Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and 1999 and now maintains 
the third largest military in the world. 
According to John W. Garver, the Indian military and Indian-trained Tibetan Armed Forces pose a 
modern threat to China which would likely not be present had China not opted for war against 
India."

Could you please take the pain to point out the so called POV in this. Also, please do not pass on orders like you did here. A little please here and Thanks there does not harm anybody. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Shovon you are in the wrong. This article has now been protected. I will not waste my time with you. Colliver55 (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Your smugness amuses me. Shovon (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I had probably edited or reverted edits in this article twice in last ten days. Your statement tries to implicate that I am responsible for the article getting protected. Your previous edits have made it abundantly clear that you are quite uncivil when it comes to communication with other editors. Perhaps, it will be a good idea for you to start from having a look at this. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Blah blah blah! How is that for civil? Colliver55 (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

May be, it would be a good idea for me not to waste my precious time with you. Btw, first of all, learn how to post messages. Shovon (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You ask me to be civil so here goes: I hereby cordially invite you to admit to the error of your deeds in unfairly and unjustly editing the article, so as to further the experience of all people using Wikipedia. Colliver55 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please be reasonable Colliver55. Like you, I am in favour of removing the paragraph in question, but we need to discuss this in good faith with other editors.BeyRel (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I apologise for my outburst. It just seems Wikipedia is being used to further peoples interpretation of events rather than the event itself. Colliver55 (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Shovon when the article is unprotected we need to reach a compromise on this article. The article is in a sorry state at the moment and needs some serious editing. It is full of inuendo, peacock and weasel words, and generally just paints a rosy picture for the Indian side of the story. Basically it tries to justify why India lost and how great it has become since. The article should include an analysis of both the Chinese and Indian side before and after the conflict, but the article must be fair to both parties. I hope we can agree on this. Colliver55 (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you, Colliver. If you see my earlier edits, I have always reverted edits which have tried to paint a larger than life picture of the Indian side. The truth is we lost and we lost very badly. In fact, the region which I hail from, was at the mercy of the Chinese troops. Jawaharlal Nehru had bid farewell to this North East Region of India in a radio broadcast.

Regarding the reverting of your edits which set off the chain of events, I just saw that a redlinked user has removed some apparently referenced paragraph. That's why I had reverted.

In any case, after 30th, we would have to work a lot on this article if we want it to be a GA. We can start with removing the POV. Looking forward to work as a team and not as opponents. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Shovon. The article is currently protected, but I have added it to my watched articles, so I will know when the article is being edited again. I apologise for my earlier behaviour, but it's so easy to let nerves get frayed when editing Wikipedia - it's amazing how personal Wikipedia can become lol! Thanks. Colliver55 (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Korea experience

The PLA overran most Indian posts with ease after their experience in the Korean War.(garbage the Chinese units in question were never sent to Korea) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.83.69 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

i think what it was trying to say was that the experience gained by the chinese in the korean war proved useful. Zoomzoom316 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

but that is only speculation. no one can say that unless the chinese themselves showed proof, right?

End of war

Why did China stop? or why didnt they demand, take more from india in the crese frie then they did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

its probably because the weapons were on their way from america. so maybe china decided to stop because the indian soldiers were going to get the weapons soon. its kinda weird because later in the war against pakistan, america armed pakistan. while we indians got our weapons from russia :) Zoomzoom316 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese withdrew when they ran out of supplies. There was only one narrow highway between China proper and Tibet at that time. The Chinese prepared for the war by sending supplies through Calcutta for a build up on the border. They obviously couldn't continue to do this once the war started, so they had ability to conduct an offensive for only a fixed length of time. Mao had no interest in the disputed territory, only in teaching India a lesson and creating a crisis for reasons of internal Chinese politics. Kauffner (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

During the war with China, it was Kennedy who was President and he was decidedly pro-India. Besides, Americans would have helped India sooner but they were busy at that time with the Cuban Missile Crisis - if you see the movie "13 days" with Kevin Costner - you will notice that the India-China war is mentioned with a quip, "Galbraith is taking care of that". By the time of war with Pakistan, Kennedy had been assassinated and Pakistan had joined CENTO - a central asian version of NATO. India was offered to join it before Pakistan but Nehru in his infinite wisdom decided to remain "neutral" and with Pakistan cozying up to the Americans had no option but to cozy up to the Soviets. In 1962 - Soviet Union refused to help India but was more favourable to China. 04:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueKnight (talk • contribs)

later on china and soviet union had a split (sino-soviet split). the truth of the matter is that under the banner of communism the soviet union was trying to get rid of racist stuff and was trying to unite "the workers of the world". the sad part was that china did not want unity it wanted dominance. after the war with india, china thought that the same human wave tactics would help it win victory over russia but china lost and had to withdraw. as for india we have always had excellent relationships with both the soviet union and russia as well as america. hopefully that friendship should continue without much hassle. Zoomzoom316 (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Mao and Khrushchev made a deal just before the war started. Mao would support Khrushchev on Cuba and Khrushchev would delay arm shipments to India. This is in Jung Chang's book. The Soviets were scheduled to deliver high altitude fighters to India. Mao had been toying with idea of war with India since 1959. When he heard about the fighter purchase, he knew it was time to hussle. Kauffner (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

India got CREAMED

Just wanted to point out, thank you. 129.173.233.137 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

combat at altitudes of 14000 feet? war after hardly one decade of independence (after 150 years of slavery under british rule)? internal religious violence hindu-muslim (resulting in creation of pakistan and partition)?

if u feel that you can boost ur ego by fighting india when it was in that condition. then thats ur issue. The definition of "creamed" would be something like what happened to china at the hands of a smaller japan.

technically war between india and china is not possible because of the himalayas. and if ur intention is to make india waste money by buying weapons and not concentrating on development of the people. then u have failed.

also make sure u go back to the article and read the later skirmishes section. in both 1967 and 1986 indian forces pushed back the chinese from arunachal pradesh. the "chola incident" and "nathula border clash" for some reason both these border clashes were not reported by chinese media. i wonder why?

i am sorry but u will have to look for someone else to fight with. we dont have a "revenge" mentality, which i am assuming is something u are trying to cultivate in us to prevent us from concentrating on education and development of people. at the moment we are too busy developing our country, we dont have time for war games in the himalayas. maybe u can try russia? Zoomzoom316 (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets not start this kind of My-country-has-a-bigger-stick-than-yours-type of flame wars here. War is a brutal business. People die in wars, horribly. It doesnt matter to a mother who has lost a son in a war which her country won decisively. BeyRel (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueKnight (talk • contribs)

combat at altitudes of 14000 feet? war after hardly one decade of independence (after 150 years of slavery under british rule)? internal religious violence hindu-muslim (resulting in creation of pakistan and partition)? if u feel that you can boost ur ego by fighting india when it was in that condition. then thats ur issue. The definition of "creamed" would be something like what happened to china at the hands of a smaller japan

Actually China were in the same situation as the Indians. China was fighting a civil war (nationalists, communists and separatist warlords) during the time the Japanese invaded, they also suffered from poverty and a corrupt government, as well as internal unrest - Just like India. The Chinese army had to borrow an airforce from the U.S, and they were poorly equipped compared to the Japanese army. But despite the inferior technology, the Japanese still werent able to conquer China, and both sides fought for 9 years of full scale battles, in which the Japanese and especially the Chinese, took millions of casualties (including civilians).

So in reality, You can not say the Japanese "creamed" the Chinese, which also means that we cannot say that we "creamed" India, because they were suffering many internal problems just like China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.45.146 (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

Why is this article dispute - what is the contention on both sides? Perhaps we should build a consensus and try and resolve it. TheBlueKnight (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit war was started by the IP puppet of a banned User:Nangparbat. I agree, that the particular paragraph is uncited and is writting like an opinion piece. May be rewriting the para in a proper tone will help. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The banner does nothing except clutter things up, but there some serious POV issues with the article. The Chinese took at least six months to prepare the logistics for the offensive.[1] The article has a lengthy "Preparation for war" section, but it contains not a hint of this. Kauffner (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: Chinese Military Victory

For all practical purposes, it is a fact that the Indians got a black eye. However, wouldn't a military victory require some form of "Treaty of Surrender" - I don't think there was one. Could someone shed some light? Thanks. TheBlueKnight (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A military victory is defined as a situation where the military accomplishes all or the majority of its stated objectives. Good example would be the recent Iraq War where the US invaded and obliterated the Iraqi army without any formal surrender. (Psychoneko (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

The Objectivity of the declassified CIA documents

Someone decided to mention the declassification of CIA documents regarding the India-China situation from the 1950s. While I've normally held a level of respect for the CIA's objectivity in intelligence gathering, the 1950s was dominated by the freak senator McCarthy. That said, I do have some reservations about the objectivity of the CIA's report given the said background in the USA. Basically, could someone review the relevance of the CIA reports before using it on the article? Good example would be the paragraph that read:

CIA documents created at the time revealed that Nehru had ignored Burmese premier Ba Swe when he warned Nehru to be cautious when dealing with Zhou.[29] They also allege that Zhou purposefully told Nehru that there were no border issues with India.[29]

(Psychoneko (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

1962 War and Its Implications For Sino-India Relations

1962 War and Its Implications For Sino-India Relations Wang Hongwei

40 years have already passed since the 1962 war, but the shadow of that war still influences Sino-India relations developing in depth.

China and India, having a long history of friendly interactions and a fine tradition of learning from each other, both suffered from imperialist and colonialist aggression, oppression and exploitation. After achieving their independence and liberation respectively in the late 40’s of 20 century, they should had supported each other and learnt from each other, in the construction work of their own country, in order to make peoples of both countries leading a happy life. But it was deplorable that due to the misperceptions and mistaken policies of a few political leaders, the development of Sino-India relations took up a winding way.

As regard the genesis of 1962 war, many eminent scholars across the world, such as Neville Maxwell, Karunakar Gupta, Steven Hoffmann and others, have made studies in depth, it is not pertinent for me to dwell on it here. But it should be noted that, the Nehru government not only took over the legacy of British imperialist strategic perceptions of security, interfered many times in the Tibet affairs of China, but demonstrated even more arrogant and un-rational on boundary issues than the British Raj. The British imperialists did draw an illegal “MacMahon Line”, but they dared not to occupy in actual deeds the territories of China to the south of that line, whereas the Nehru government did it. Evidence indicated that, in the early years after independence, Jawaharlal Nehru himself instructed privately Mullik, head of the Intelligence Bureau, to count China as an enemy. It was under his approval, Indian armed border police drove away the Tibetan administers and occupied Sela by force in 1948,.and later, occupied further Tawang and other Chinese territories to the south of “MacMahon Line” by force in 1952. But Nehru government did not stop here, it sought to decide for itself where India’s borders with China should lie and then impose the alignments it had chosen on China. In 1960, the Nehru government not only refused to negotiate with Zhou Enlai who made a special trip to New Delhi in order to seek a friendly settlement of Sino-Indian boundary question, but refused any standstill agreement. In the following year, it ordered to carry out the forward policy. According this policy, the Indian army attacked unceasingly the PLA’s posts along the whole border areas and killed many Chinese soldiers, in an attempt to extrude Chinese army out of all the Chinese territory it claimed. This aggressive and provocative policy not only interrupted the status quo, but also made breach of the peace and tranquility along the whole border areas. Developing up to October, 1962, Nehru ordered the Indian army to take the offensive., and he made a statement about it on 12th of the same mouth.. His statement shocked the whole world. The New York Herald Tribune published an editorial titled “Neheru Declare A War Against China” the following day.

All honest and sober-minded people could see that the 1962 war was imposed on China by the Neheru government. China had no other way out but lunched counter-attack and adopted an preventive action then. The purposes of it were: (1) To defend peace and tranquility along the whole border areas; (2) To make the Neheru government to return back to the negotiating table. China had no any intention to solve the boundary question by force, this was proved by the fact that, as soon as the PLA won the victory in war, they returned to their original posts.

But, how the Neheru government explained the event to the Indian public and people? It had no courage to admit its own mistakes and tell the truth to them, but adopted an un-honest and irrational means to blame it on China that, China conducted an “un-provoked aggression” against India, and China “betrayed India” etc.. This frame-up produced two kinds of negative and malign consequences: First, China’s image was turned into a devil since then in the mind of the Indian public and people; Second, India embarked on the intensive arming which led to a long-term confrontation between the two countries, and caused a huge unnecessary waste of manpower and material resources to both sides. These negative and malign consequences have really made those who are zealous to maintain Sino-Indian friendship, feel distressed.

Though it was so, we have no reason to be crestfallen. As the saying goes, “the misfortune might be a blessing in disguise.” If the successors can learn the real lessons from the mistakes of their predecessors and turn them into lasting actions, it would be no difference for both peoples of the two countries to own an invaluable precious wealth.

Thanks to the late Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s historic visit to China in 1988, Sino-India relations have restored to normality gradually. During Indian Prime Minister P.V.Narasimha Rao’s visit to China in 1993, both sides signed the Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control in the China-India Border Areas. In 1996, an further agreement on “confidence-building measures in the military field along the LAC” was signed by both sides during Chairman Jiang Zemin’s visit to India. All these demonstrated that the two governments had become far-sighted and mature. This is the very reason that why Sino-India relations has developed smoothly and quickly on the whole during the last more than 10 years, though it took an unexpected turn in 1998.

However, we should not sit conceited. It should be noted that, in terms of the populations, sizes, economic scales and the roles played in contemporary world by China and India, the co-operations between them are far to say having reached to the level they should be. What has obstructed Sino-India relations to be developed in depth and the potentials of them to be given full play? There are both objective and subjective factors. Judging from the present conditions, it seems that the subjective factors are prevailing, and the resistance are mainly from Indian side. Why I am so saying? Because in the India side, there still are a considerable number of political officials, armymen and thinktankers who have not liberated their minds from the shadows of the misunderstanding related to 1962 war. Many of them still adhere willingly or un-willingly, to the strategic perception of security prevailing in the old times, and count China as a threat or a potential adversary. In such a psychology and mentality, how could you expect to develop further Sino-India relations in depth? I don’t complain them, because the majority of them were also misled by the Neheru administration and few of them know the real situations in China. I believe, with increasing mutual exchanges and contacts, the day will come when they will realize that China is a true friend and brother of India. Now, the challenge facing us is, how effectively will the far-sighted statesmen and those of insight, make publicity the truth of 1962 war, and let that day come earlier.

The day when Sino-India misunderstanding is thoroughly dispersed, an era for Sino-India co-operations developing in depth will definitely come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.11.180 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

When I was traveling in Darjeeling and Sikkim in late Oct. 2008, I saw perhaps a hundred army trucks everyday plying the road to the border. Our guide said that they were supplying the troops at the front, stockpiling before the snow comes, when the road would be closed. I did not go near the front so I don’t know how it looks like, but two years ago when I was in Tibet, I did not see any military activity, actually I don’t recall seeing any uniformed military personnel at all during my two weeks traveling there.

I am a Chinese Canadian. Before I came to India to travel for six weeks; I just assumed that the relation between China and India was good, because there were some news about that both sides wanted to increase the trade between the countries across the Himalayas. There has not been a lot of news on the Chinese newspapers about India, so that got stuck on my mind. I knew there was a border war many years ago, that was provoked by the Indian and China won, but I thought it was settled. I did not know that the border problem was still there.

I was very surprised that there was a lot of news about China on the Indian news papers, even more surprised that the tone of this news was cool at best, and hostile some times. One government official said China was India’s competitor and “adversary”; another said that China was India’s “greatest security concern”. This in spite of the official position of improving relationship with China and was just days before the Mumbai incident! I asked a couple of local guides what they felt about China, both said that they were willing to let by gone be by gone and look forward for more cooperation. However the tone of their answer was a little strange, there was a magnanimous forgiving attitude in it, India lost the fight, but it did not sound like from someone who started it! I did not realized that perhaps their understanding of the war and mine may not be the same.

When I got home I started to research this topic. On almost all sources I consider “neutral”, which mostly are Western and Indian sources (there are almost no significant Chinese sources), including this Wikipedia entry, confirm what the Chinese government has been saying was true – at least on this topic, that India provoked the war, and the Indian government has not been forthright with there citizens; and the boundary issue has not been solved.

I am just an ordinary citizen, and not even a Chinese citizen at that. I don’t know what is on the Chinese governments mind, but from what I see it appears that the Chinese government is quite willing to put the boundary issue on the back burner and just move forward in trade and other relationship, something both sides can benefit immediately. There was a lot of “news” which everyone knows is tightly controlled by the government, about how China is ready to open up trading with India. When Britain “apologized” to China for its behaviour in this theatre last October, there was no news on the implication to India’s territorial claim. Several years ago when India finally released the two Chinese “POW” when the newspaper exposed them, 40 years after the war, after which China promptly returned all POWs, more than 3900. I don’t recall reading the story. The Chinese government must be trying to control the public opinion about India.

As things stand, it appears that China is ready to move ahead, but I don’t know if India is. The public opinion in India may still be not ready. The boundary issue can be put aside for the time being but eventually will have to be faced. China might have accepted Aksai Chin in exchange for NEFA in 1962, but the situation is different now that Aksai Chin is not as strategically as important to China as it was then. Could India get as good a deal as it could have got? I have been to both countries; at this point China is more advanced, and is pulling ahead, especially in terms of diplomatic influences. It would be beneficial to India to settle this sooner rather than later. However India may not perceive it as urgent, it has a big problem with Pakistan as well as a lot of internal strives. I don’t know if it has the wherewithal to proceed quickly with China, which overall is a more cohesive country.

Over the past thousands of years, China and India by and large had a very good relationship. China got Buddhism from India, and I saw those fishing nets in Karalla, introduced from China in the 14th century. Chinese came and instead of raising colonial wars, left behind something that is still being used today. China has no design on Indian land. It wants a negotiated rather than a forced settlement on the border issue. I hope I will live to see better days between the two countries. 2009.01.1067.204.44.98 (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)CC

Hi, a nice post. But there have been some issues, due to which, there is skepticism in India regarding China. Let me note down some of these points below -

1. Although India provoked China, it was the Chinese who attacked first. Also, all the reviews (except those published by communist intellectuals) of the war show that China was well prepared while India was not.

2. China has a long term history of supporting Pakistan. In fact, without Chinese know-how, it would have been impossible for Pakistan to have its own nuclear bombs.

3. China had also supported all the Indian insurgent groups in the North East in 1960s, 1970s and well in to 1980s. Till date, Chinese made arms and ammunition forms the backbone of the major insurgent outfits in the North East India.

4. Even in the recent past (before 26/11 Mumbai Attacks), China vetoed the security council's move to declare Jamat Ud Dawah and some other terrorist organizations based in Pakistan, as terrorist organisations.

I can say that this is not an exhaustive list. There are many other issues also which need to be solved before India and China can have a peaceful and mutually beneficial relationship. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this article is nortoriously pro-India

This article tried to paint China as aggressive and India as passive and peaceloving. Not mentioning those shameful braggings about those Indian army's "heroic death" in the article. There is even no mention that mentions China wins the war. I almost thought the war ended up in a draw after reading the article. Nice editing. My follow Indian patriots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.248.140.58 (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Truth is that China was aggresive and India thought of China as a partner, but after losing the war, India showed it as being passive and peaceloving (as most countries do after losing a war). It was the perfect time to attack India as India was a newly created nation (no nukes), partition with Pakistan, had very little presence on the Chinese border.China had a walk in the park and was brutal against India. 96.52.193.72 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The American's Role

I find this Wikipedia entry on the Sino-Indian War fair, not as fair as I would have liked but still fair, and quite detailed. My read of it is that the immediate cause of the war was Nehru’s Forward Policy, which was very aggressive. Nehru took this aggressive stand because he underestimated the Chinese reaction, for some reasons.

However, I remember many years ago I read a Chinese article saying that Nehru was encouraged to take an aggressive stand in the border dispute by the Americans. It was at the height of the cold war era, the Americans was trying to make as much trouble for the Chinese as possible; they were recruiting Tibetan in India to train them in guerilla warfare and airdropping them into China. It is understandable that the Americans would encourage Nehru to be aggressive in such circumstance.

There is no mention of this in this Wikipedia entry. Some cited references implicated this but none directly. I of course have no way to verify this. Can anyone comment?

Incidentally, the comments on the Chinese Wikipedia entry on this topic generally are critical of the Chinese government for voluntarily withdrawing from the recovered disputed area.

I am a Chinese Canadian; I have lived in Canada for over 40 years. I just finished a six week tour of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.3.252 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think the war had much to do with the Forward Policy or the border dispute. Zhou had said nothing about the McMahon Line back in 1954. Mao liked to keep the international kettle boiling for domestic political reasons. (It took everyone's mind off the fact they were starving.) Nehru had ticked him off by giving the Dalai Lama asylum back in 1959. Mao authorized some border clashes that summer and these revealed that the Indian army was pathetically unprepared. He had planned to attack earlier, but pulled back when he realized that India could retaliate by allowing U-2 flights from its territory. (This would allow the CIA to get a look at the Lop Nor nuclear testing site.) Tell the superpatriots that the Chinese had no choice but to withdraw. They had run out of supplies and both the U.S. and Soviets were sending military aid to India. India received high altitude Soviet warplanes soon after the war.

In India's China War Maxwell claims the CIA gave Nehru some piece information that bolstered his confidence that China would not react to the Forward Policy. The CIA's supersecret "crown jewels" account of the war was declassified about a year ago and it didn't have anything terribly new in it,[2] so I doubt the CIA was up to anything clever. In any case, the Forward Policy was something Nehru had his heart set on for many years. He was writing along these lines even before he became prime minister. So no matter what the CIA told him, I find it hard to pin the blame for this moronic policy on anyone other than Nehru. Kauffner (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)