Talk:Sino-Indian War/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Rogue editing

There is a rogue user named "Zoomzoom316" keep editing/adding unnecessary contents in the leading secion. Can anyone with administrator priviledge block this user, or at least remove the contents he constantly adding?

I encourage users to bring the topics to Talk first, when we reach enough consensus we can add them in. Thank you! Xingdong (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

i have only added facts. if you had noticed i have also deleted biased sentences that were in indias favour, so im not trying to put down china or anything.i am maintaining neutrality, nothing more nothing less.i have added a territory section that talks about the territorial changes after the war and i have added a short summary about the current situation. thats about it.neutrality maintainedZoomzoom316 (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If possible it would be better to discuss the changes here first, as a courtesy to the previous contributors and to ensure that the changes would have the intended effect.67.204.55.154 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)CC

I don't understand what is so problematic about Zoomzoom316's edits. Please explain. Bertport (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

1. There is already a "Aftermath" section at the end of the article. Adding another in the lead section is unnecessary.

2. Zoomzoom316 tends to use personal type of bias statememnts like "China unilaterally declared the region of South Xinjiang (an area claimed by India as askai chin) as a part of China". No quotes, or link to the statements.

At this stage of this entry, I encourage users to come to this discussion section first for anything he wants to add/delete. We don't want rogue users like "Zoomzoom316" who comes here and adds/edits his own POVs. Xingdong (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, yes, "unilaterally" was not necessary, though it wasn't exactly inflammatory, either. But it does make sense to briefly summarize the aftermath in the lead section. WP guidelines indicate that the lead section should usually provide a high level summary of the content of the article. Bertport (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

xindong the only person who is being offensive is you.

i dont know why you keep on calling me "rogue editor"

as i said before i have put a small summary to let people know what happened after the war thats about it.

the decision that china made was completely unilateral with absolutely no consultation with india whatsoever. but anyway since it bothers people, i have removed the word.Zoomzoom316 (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding British's Historic Policy Change in the Lead Section

If everybody agrees, I am going to add the "British's Historic Policy Change" announced by British Foreigh Secretary in Oct. 2008 to the lead section. The policy change has significant implication on this Sino-Indian War entry. Xingdong (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Which historic policy change is that, and what are the significant implications? What are your sources? Bertport (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bertport, here is some info about the British's policy change (quotes from New York Times)

On Oct. 29, 2008, A historic change of position to recognise Chinese sovereignty over Tibet was announced in a parliamentary statement by the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

Mr. Miliband described the British position as an anachronism and a colonial legacy. It certainly emerged out of a shabby episode in colonial history, Francis Younghusband’s cavalier invasion of Tibet in 1903(New York Times).

Britain’s change of heart risks tearing up a historical record that frames the international order and could provide the basis for resolving China’s dispute with Tibet. The British government may have thought the issue of no significance to Britain’s current national interests and so did not submit it to public debate. But the decision has wider implications. India’s claim to a part of its northeast territories, for example, is largely based on the same agreements — notes exchanged during the Simla convention of 1914, which set the boundary between India and Tibet — that the British appear to have just discarded. That may seem minor

to London, but it was over those same documents that a major war between India and China was fought in 1962, as well as a smaller conflict in 1987(New York Times).

This change totally undermined the Indian's territorial claims that led to the short but brutal border war in 1962. Thus this entry Sino-Indian War needs to be fundamentally revised.

Xingdong (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting that Robert Barnett interprets this as having implications on the Simla Accord, but that's Barnett speaking, not the British Government. The British representative made it very clear that this was a present tense statement that Tibet is part of China, full stop, with nothing being said about what the status of Tibet was at any time in the past. Bertport (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course it has implications. Since British admits that the whole Tibet afair was a colonial mistake, all its accords with Tibet were subsequently mistakes. Thus the "Simla convention" of 1914 between British and Tibet should not be viewed as valid. The implication of that is, the territorial claims from India side were based on this Simla convention, so these claims are totally undermined. Xingdong (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, Britain is not making any such statement as you suggest about past policies. It is simply saying that Tibet is [that's present tense, meaning now] part of China. Nothing about how long it has been part of China. [1] Bertport (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The British didn't make such direct statements, however, it does recognize China's direct rule over Tibet, and admit that the past Tibet affair was "an anachronism and a colonial legacy". That's why I call it "implications". As you know China's position has always been the same: Tibet was part of China, it didn't have rights to sign any accord/treaty with other party without China's rectification. The British policy change strengthens China's position that the Simla accord was invalid. That is one of the implications of this change. And the Sino-Indian borders are still under dispute, more negotiations between China and India are going on. Of course there are implications. Xingdong (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not "the past Tibet affair" that was characterized "an anachronism and a colonial legacy". Bertport (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bertport, I think you are right. To be exact, what David Milliband meant was that the old British policy toward Tibet was "an anachronism and a colonial legacy".

For what is one of the implications of the policy change, please read this from New York Times carefully:

The British government may have thought the issue of no significance to Britain’s current national interests and so did not submit it to public debate. But the decision has wider implications. India’s claim to a part of its northeast territories, for example, is largely based on the same agreements — notes exchanged during the Simla convention of 1914, which set the boundary between India and Tibet — that the British appear to have just discarded. That may seem minor to London, but it was over those same documents that a major war between India and China was fought in 1962, as well as a smaller conflict in 1987.

Xingdong (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As already discussed, Barnett is overreaching. I think it would be reasonable to mention in, say, the World Opinion section, not in the lead, that Barnett in a NYT editorial linked Britain's shift to the Sino-Indian War. But this is too peripheral to go in the lead, and it must not be overstated, which you seem to be eager to do. Bertport (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

it has no implications whatsoever. once you make a deal, you make the deal. you cant go back on your word.

even then britain has only said regarding tibet. there is no mention whatsoever about arunachal pradesh and china cannot go around the world giving its opinion on where tibet should start and end. if thats the case china might as well claim the whole india as belonging to "south tibet"

it has no implications.

india will keep on producing nukes non stop.Zoomzoom316 (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Zoomzoom316, your revenge type of attitude clouds your judgement and that does not fit Wikipedia's spirit. Yah, we can go on and on with "my stick is bigger than yours" type of arguement, but that is absolutely not helpful in clearing up the facts.Xingdong (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This article should be about what happened 1962 with a minimum of background. The claim that Milliband's statement invalidates Simla is just one commentator's opinion -- and Barnett clearly doesn't understand international law. Simla was published in Aitchison's Treaties. This means it is recognized as a valid treaty by the British government -- and Milliband has not claimed otherwise. Whether Tibet was ever independent is irrelevant. After all, the U.S. made treaties with various Indian tribes, although these were never considered independent in international law. Moreover, a statement made by a British minister in 2008 cannot change Tibet's status, whatever it was, in 1914. Aside from the Tawang distict, the McMahon Line was already the effective boundary before Simla. So to interpret Milliband's statement as justifying a Chinese claim to all of Arunachal Pradesh is quite a leap. Kauffner (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. From what I understand, some of the treaties' ownership passed onto India and hence the Republic of India would be the one to alter them - whatever the British Govt. says is irrelevant. TheBlueKnight (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Simla Accord is not a valid treaty as we all know Tibet was part of China. How could a part sign a treaty with another country? If it did without its central/federal government's approval, the treaty would not be rectified, and therefore will not be recognized by other countries. This is basic international convention/law. If India's claims were based on this accord, too bad they were wrong. If you say India inherited these from Britain, they inherited wrong things. I can see some people trying to simplify the implication, like Kauffner said Barnett's "one commentator's opinion" and David Milliband's "one man's speech". David Milliband is not a homeless on London street, he was not doing one man's speech. He was speaking for his country, and that means a country's policy change, period. Xingdong (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If the ownership of the treaty was passed onto india, then indeed the onus would be on india to negotiate a fair settlement with china. But I don't think what britain says is irrelevant, afterall it is the legal basis for india's claim. You inherit the booty of your colonial master, you inherit it's consequence too. If a robber gave you an robbed item, are you then a legal owner of it? 01:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)CC

I was addressing the question of whether Milliband's statement changes the status of the Simla Convention. If you think Tibet was never sovereign and Britain is a robber and all that, then why would you care what Milliband says? Countries don't "recognize treaties" that they aren't party to. The treaty is still part of the official British treaty record, it hasn't been repudiated, and Millibrand has not made any claim to the effect that it has. Kauffner (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner, since you mentioned "British official treaties", I have just gone through British treaties[[2]] and couldn't find there is Simla Convention, or Simla Accord, or something similar. I think this was not a treaty therefore it never showed up. Or British just removed/repudiated it? Xingdong (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The official record is C. U. Aitchison's A Collection Of Treaties, Engagements And Sanads, Vol XIV, Calcutta 1929, pp. 21 & 38. There are only 29 treaties in the list you link to. Aitchison's is 14 volumes and almost 7,000 pages. Kauffner (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner, I searched the A Collection Of Treaties, Engagements And Sanads and read a little bit. This was about Indian Treaties, not British official treaties as you claimed. Many of these, have been abandoned when the colony era ended. The Simla Accord has just been discarded along with British's policy change toward Tibet. That's why you can't see them any more from British official websites. If India still holds these old treaties and uses them as legal bases, one day it will find the building it's working hard to build, is based on a bunch of sand. Xingdong (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tibet was an independent country. It was incorporated into China only after China signed the "Seventeen Point Agreement for Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" in 1950. And that is one treaty which has been repudiated by the Tibetan-govt-in-exile and the Dalai Lama. Btw, what is the basis of the Chinese takeover of Tibet? TheBlueKnight (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Tibet was not an independent country. See this wikipedia entry Tibet says:

During most of this period, the Tibetan administration was subordinate to the Chinese empire of the Qing China. After the fall of Qing, the Dalai Lama proclaimed Tibet independence in 1913, however, it was not accepted by the successor state of Qing, the newly founded Republic of China. Furthermore, Tibet was not recognized by any country as a de jure independent nation

The "Seventeen Point Agreement for Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" was not an convention/accord between PRC and Tibet, rather, this was just an agreement that Tibet be peacefully "liberated", not by force. There were similar agreements in other parts of China during civil war too. For example, the Peking was "liberated" in the similar agreement. In 1913 when China was undergoing huge social/political transition, it didn't have time to deal with Tibet. But in 1950, it was just natural to reassert control over Tibet.

Xingdong (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Since about 500CE, Tibet had been a vassal state of China proper, and became formally a province of China around 1200CE. The relatopnship had been peaceful and mutual. Tibet relied on the protection of China proper to fend off various invaders, Nepal, etc., In the 1800's CE China was on the verge of collapse because of the western colonial powers, and could not pay much attention to Tibet. During this period Tibet operated more or less as an independent country trying to fend off the competing interests of the Brits and the Russians. Britain's acceptance of Tibet being part of China is implicit in that it instructed McMahon not to bypass China in the Simla conference. An instruction McMahon disobeyed and for that now Britain apologied. When the Republic of China (ROC) was established the link between China proper and Tibet was reestablished, without fanfare or any careful diplomatic maneuvering, my guess is that both sides just assumed that it was business as before. The problem started when the People's Republic of China (PRC) made a mess of China with it's communism and land reform. Tibet was a serf society then and the aristocracy (land owners) was very fearful. It was at the height of the cold war and US took advantage of the situation, with the help of India according to PRC, and stirred up the "uprising", resulting in Dalai Rama's excile.

All these is moot, as Dalai Rama himself does not want Tibet to be a separate country from China. What really puzzles me is that some Indians seemed to have difficulty in understanding the plight of or having sympathy for a fellow victim of imperial colonialism. WikiCC (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)wikiCC

I am glad India does not apply that logic of Empire to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma and even Afghanistan.... TheBlueKnight (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what logic you meant, but I do note that you did not include in your list Sikkim, Ghurkaland, Goa, and South Tibet. WikiCC (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)wikiCC

I meant the logic of an Indian Empire thousands of years ago akin to the Chinese applying the logic to Tibet. Sikkim invited India - the Chogyal did - Goa was Portuguese and in case u haven't noticed - it is kinda far from the Indian peninsula and South Tibet is a fabric of Communist China imagination....TheBlueKnight (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I still don't know what you meant. I presented the history of the Tibet/China issue, at least as I know it. You don't have to believe what I said. Sometimes there are just different versions of the same thing. When I was in Sikkim, a guy asked me why so many people speak up against China annexing Tibet but no one said anything about India annexing Sikkim? He probably did not know that his king invited India.

To resolve any conflict by negotiation the first thing you have to do is to understand your opponent's reasoning. I think China understands India's reasoning for claiming South Tibet - it inherited it from Britain. If India's understanding of China's reasoning is that China just has vivid imagination, I have to wonder if India knows how to negotiate peacefully. Who is having imagination over the Kashmere? Pakistan?

Please note that exept with India, China has settled all border issues on land with all its neighbours by negotiation, even with Russia. India chooses not to settle its border issues with both its major neighbours. WikiCC (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)wikiCC

Please Provide Source

User Zoomzoom316 has added following contents into the lead section:

In the aftermath of the war, China declared that the region in Southwestern Xinjiang (an area claimed by India as Aksai Chin) was a part of China. India would later follow by declaring that the region in North-East Frontier Agency (an area claimed by China as South Tibet) was a part of India. The Indian army has held a firm control over Arunachal Pradesh for the past 45 years, though the region has tensed during the Nathula and Chola incidents. Since the end of the war, the Chinese government has stepped up defenses in its border areas while the Indian government has constantly increased the amount of military weapons in Arunachal Pradesh both in terms of conventional and nuclear warheads.

In order to maintain credibility of this Wikipedia entry, please provide source. If no source can be provided, please remove it. Nobody wants to see this entry turning into garbage can. We have met a user named Shovon, who claimed he has the Henderson-Brooks Report and who made numerous garbage "contributions" to this entry. Enough is enough. Xingdong (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

xindong i have no idea what you are getting so angry about.

everybody in this discussion forum has contributed in a calm, rational manner. yet for some reason you have been nothing but angry throughout. at the end of the war did china decleare the region of askai chin as south xinjiang? yes. did india later follow and declare the north east frontier region as arunachal pradesh? yes. since the war ended does india have control over arunachal and china over south xinjian? yes. has china stepped up defences in its area and india in its? yes. why should such a simple paragraph that summarises everything neatly and which is obviously facts bother someone?

xindong you need to relax dudeZoomzoom316 (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Zoomzoom316, I suggest you do more study on this subject. After that, you probably can't find simply answers to your own questions. I myself feel like I have a lot to read/investigate. However, I will try to answer them as much as I can:

1. No, China has called that area "South Xinjiang" long before the 1962 war

2. Part of that area has been traditionally Tibetan habitant. The sixth Dalai Lama was born there.

3. Since the war ended, there are LAC, but the disputes are still there.

4. No. I can see the defences from both sides are decreasing in recent years.

Xingdong (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

i can put in references if you want to. but isn't it obvious. i mean thats the way it happened and now the regions are with the respective countries. do you want me to references. i dont mind. i just thought it was obvious.Zoomzoom316 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Zoomzoom316 The contents you added have no any reference/quote, thus they shall all be removed as unreliable source. To you they may look "obvious", however, to other people they may be biased (you may think it is obvious everybody in this world love curry?? lol). Listen, if everyone can add anything he/she thinks "right", then this entry will be chaotic again. Xingdong (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I have seen, this sort of issue is pretty routine in Wikipedia. User A posts material. User B questions it by putting fact tags on it. Somebody provides citations. Or, if not, the tagged material is removed after a reasonable period of time. Since fact tags are dated no finer grain than a month, that implies that a reasonable period of time is at least a month, unless there is something really objectionable about the material. In this case, it might be a good idea to put the material in the aftermath section instead of the lead section. Or just leave it off until you actually do have citations for it, considering all the discussion and push-pull that has already gone on. The discussion that's taken place here has been unnecessarily personal. Bertport (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Zoomzoom316, I would agree with your paragraph if you would add one sentence: firm control over Arunachal Pradesh, "an area China voluntarilly relinquish control in order to have a negotiated settlement rather than a forced one", 01:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)CC

some say china did not want it and voluntarily went away, but then why make a claim on it later? obviously if you gave up something voluntarily, then there would be no point in making a claim on it.

others say that the chinese supply lines over the himalayas were impossible to maintain. considering the fact that if either india or china had to cross to the other side from the arunachal pradesh region you would have to cross those HUGE mountains. Zoomzoom316 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"At that time possibly china was willing to exchange south tibet for aksai chin just to have peace, but nehru wanted everything and refused. now aksai chin is not as important to china as then, and will not give up either without negotiation. india passed up a good deal, and the way i see it, delaying settlement is not to india's advantage.

it is difficult to wage war over the mountain, but the present LOC is approximately along the ridge and south tibet is only a few km down hill, hardly makes any difference, it is not like going all the way to the bay of bengal, that china would have to do if it did not want to stop. and there was no organized indian resistance so china would not face any pressure at least for a long period. in retrospect, it was probably not a good move to pull back in the sense that

makes solving the problem now much harder for both countries. 03:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)CC

Or the fact that Kennedy being pro-India had decided to send even more armed supplies to India and was about to direct more resources to help India now that the Cuban missile crisis was over made the Chinese withdraw... 04:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueKnight (talk • contribs)

Maybe. We will never know. The offer of cease fire was before US announcement of sending air craft carrier. Also all the wars China fought for itself (i.e. except the Korean war) were of limited scope (see Calvin, and others). I am not a fan of Mao, in fact I hate him, he was an egomaniac and psychopathic, but knowing him I don't think he would be intimided by the US. He took on the other superpower USSR over the border issue. (please note misarranged sentence corrected) WikiCC (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)wikiCC

[Zoomzoom], don't get frustrated. Get more study on this topic and come back we can discuss more. The history topics like this need more serious information, not just what someone thinks "right". Xingdong (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Completely Neutral and Obvious fact removed

unbelievable this is the first time when something that is clompletely neutral and obvious has been called "biased" wow.

please read the sentences again and you will see that they are neutral.

yes the region was called xinjiang by china but the part which was in the control of india what was it called?

under the indian control it was called askai chin but afterwards the chinese renamed the area south xinjiang.

similarly the region of north east frontier agency was claimed by china but india renamed this area arunachal pradesh.

the area of arunachal pradesh has deep religious significance for the indian people but you dont see people claiming each others land on the basis of religion or culture, then the world would be filled with people making weird claims on each others lands.

again who is in control of arunachal at the moment? india regardless if the dispute is there or not and where the loc is, at the moment the indian army controls the arunachal pradesh region. similarly the chinese army controls the south xinjiang region regardless of the fact that the dispute is still there. i guess i will put the sentences later with references, i just thought that all of this was obvious.

Do you seriously think such information doesn't need backing up by a single reference. If you feel strongly about things, do the research work and add referenced facts to bolster you edits. AshLin (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

as i understand it, india has a policy of repproachment to china, and has signed treaties to avoid using force. is zoomzoom acusing the indian gov. of being hypocritical? 03:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)CC

Zoomzoom, like I said, we need reliable sources, not something only you think is right. See Bertport's suggestion, if you want to contribute something after the war, add it to "Aftermath" section, which is located at the end of the article. Xingdong (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor Adjustments You Should Note

There are a couple of things i would like to say on this subject matter. First of all, from my understanding (i've read this article way far back before all the edits... believe me it has been edited so many times), the PRC never declared war on India nor sent troops over the marked boundary in which they thought was theirs. The point was to not draw unneccessary opponents (aka USA) into prolonged warfare. Anyways, this article used to be called the sino-indian incident. now they call it a "war"?

In the "Events leading up to War" LOL @ the PLA "annexed" Tibet part.

Also the paragraph in the "Confrontation at Thang La"; it almost sounds like it was copied word for word out of an Indian propaganda pamplet. "The Indians were surrounded by Chinese positions which used mortar fire. However, they managed to hold off the first Chinese assault, inflicting heavy casualties." LOL, in an event which the indian casualty rate is almost 9 (killed or captured indians) to 1 (killed or captured PLA), this paragraph really really stretches the truth. I also want to note how the next few paragraphs is basically Indian ego stroking and completely unnecessary in wikipedia standards.

Also, the paragraphs entitled under "Chinese Offensive" should be properly be entitled "Chinese Counter-Offensive" since those operations took place on disputed land and after the indian army has entrenched themselves in stragetic positions inside the disputed zone and even as far as inside china minor. If this paragraph is still entitled "Chinese Offensive" then the previous few paragraphs should be entitled "Indian Offensive". Because it leaves the reader to conclude that the PRC invaded India when in fact it was the exact opposite.

The section entitled "Lull in the Fighting" should be more corrected renamed into "PRC offers seizefire." Or it should not even be a branched off section anyways. The following section should be entitled, "India refuses seizefire." the rest of the article reeks of indian propaganda. chinese human wave tatics? indian heroism? are you serious? somebody please fix this.

(Giantgrowth (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

What XinDong wants to add is actually already in there, before early 2009.01. It is nothing new. Apparently someone just did it and nobofy raised ojection then, so I don't understand what is the fuzz now.

There are advantages and disadvantages if having users to contribute. Some of the wannabe contributors, I wonder if they have read the entire Wiki article, let alone the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCC (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I read that and noticed that. It is under "McMahon Line" section. What I wanted to raise is the implications are more than just the McMahon Line. Xingdong (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My apology to XinDong, I was not referring to you when I commended on the "wannabes". You appeared to have done a lot of home work! WikiCC (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just thought y'all should know the link for 'MMGs' under Western Theatre in the Continuation of War section redirects to Mosley Music Group, which I don't think is likely related to the war. I'm just a reader, and am not sure what the link is intended to point to anyway, just thought I should let you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.12.125 (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

haha... Wikipedia is entertaining... Xingdong (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

British's Historic Policy Change

On Oct. 29, 2008, A historic change of position to recognise Chinese sovereignty over Tibet was announced in a parliamentary statement by the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

Mr. Miliband described the British position as an anachronism and a colonial legacy. It certainly emerged out of a shabby episode in colonial history, Francis Younghusband’s cavalier invasion of Tibet in 1903(New York Times).

Britain’s change of heart risks tearing up a historical record that frames the international order and could provide the basis for resolving China’s dispute with Tibet. The British government may have thought the issue of no significance to Britain’s current national interests and so did not submit it to public debate. But the decision has wider implications. India’s claim to a part of its northeast territories, for example, is largely based on the same agreements — notes exchanged during the Simla convention of 1914, which set the boundary between India and Tibet — that the British appear to have just discarded. That may seem minor to London, but it was over those same documents that a major war between India and China was fought in 1962, as well as a smaller conflict in 1987(New York Times).

This change totally undermined the Indian's territorial claims that led to the short but brutal border war in 1962. Thus this entry Sino-Indian War needs to be fundamentally revised. Xingdong (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

the article sino indian war has nothing to do whatsoever with any statement made by british media almost 50 years after the war in 2009.

if you want you can make another article on wikipedia called:

"sino-indian border negotiations"

that would be the place where you could mention all of this.

it has no implications whatsoever on the article - the sino indian war of 1962.

the war in 1962 was fought based on what was agreed between britain, india and tibet at that time.

the war had nothing to do with statements released in the present 50 years after the war. Zoomzoom316 (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it has. But we absolutely need to add it as a latest development of this event, as the territorial claims were what one side based upon. Xingdong (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Latest development of this event" ?? Are you serious? This is NOT an on-going event; the war of 1962 was over in ahem - 1962. It seems like the Xing & Zoom war is an on-going event though. :) Listen - this event is over a long time ago. There are no latest developments in it. It is meant to be a historical article - the point is not to prove the territorial claims of one country over the other - it is just meant to represent the events as they happened in 1962. And yes, there are claims and counter claims - and there is more opacity revolving around the event then there is transparency. We all need to live with that. TheBlueKnight (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As i said before, we need to accept it, learn from it, and move on! how the problem gets resolved ultimately, and i am a realist, depends on who has the power. whatever wekipedia says makes good entertainment but i am afraid makes no difference what so ever. At this point both india and china need to catch up with the G8. Maybe one day both countries will be so rich such that NEFA will not be worth fighting for. When i first started researching this subject i just did a yahoo search and read most items in the first 10 pages. I am not an expert by any mean. but if all of you read what i read, i doubt some of the things said here would be said. i highly recommend an article by gregory clark on rediff.com, an australian diplomat in charge of the asia desk at the time. you can see the attitudes of some of the G8 countries to the sino-indian war! 02:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)CC

Xingdong, you actually went ahead and put it in. Don't you think it should rather be on the Sino-Indian relations page than on a war page? I still believe that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the War of 1962. TheBlueKnight (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, do you think the British policy change has anything to do with Sino-Indian relations? I think British's old policy was related to Simla Convention, and the McMahon Line, which later led to the war. Bertport suggested that this shouldn't be in the lede section, but rather in "World Opinion" section. I am not comfortable with that section, but couldn't find a better place to put it. Maybe we should start a new section for that? Xingdong (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the British policy change could have a potential impact in future on Sino-Indian and indeed on Indo-British relations. What I think is that it is completely unrelated to the war in 1962. I don't believe it should be on this page at all. TheBlueKnight (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

With the added paragraph in the "World Opinion" section, then at least some wordings in the "Background" section and the "Events Leading to the War" section should be changed regarding the McMahon Line and the Tibet Issue. WikiCC (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bhutan-China Border Trouble?

Between March 16th and March 20th, 2009 I was in the tiny nation of Bhutan and saw numerous Bhutanese Army troops along with their Indian Army allies. My tour guide informed me that Bhutan and China did not have any relationship to speak of (probably out of Bhutanese sympathy for their Tibetan Buddhist brethern). In fact, on the way to the Tiger's Nest monastery we drove over where the Bhutan - Tibet border had been as recently as 1907 and that several wars had been fought in the region (mostly in the 17th century). Given these facts, has there been any known border incidents between China and Bhutan? (or Nepal for that matter)?JeepAssembler (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I can not claim to be an expert, so I could be wrong. I just read a lot of newspapers and books. I recently read something about China settling the border with Vietnam, and only the border (land borders) with India is left to settle. I am also not aware of any recent wars between Bhutan and China. It is possibly that there were wars in the past. If Bhutan and India are close allies, then I can see that China and Bhutan may not have a "friendly" relationship. Afterall I noticed lots of Indian military trucks in Sikkim last Nov. 2008. All I can say is I can not recall seeing any military in Tibet Oct. 2006. (somewhere in this Wiki entry, it mentioned that the Indian troop fleed into Bhutan and The Chinese troop did not pursue in respect of the Bhutanese border, if I remember right.) I also recall a newspaper article saying that Nepal and India have issues on their border. Nepal does not want to negotiate with India directly but wants China participate as well. I don't want to speculate what this means. How knowledgeable was your guide? I was in India for a long tour. Some of the guides were quite good, but some are awful. The guide in Chenai even got history of the name of her own city wrong! WikiCC (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My guide in Bhutan seemed quite knowledgeable about Thimphu, Paro, Pannakuh, and other sites we visited (Dzongs, museum, paper factory, and textile weaving factory) no mention was made of current border trouble though.JeepAssembler (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

War Result

This is for those who keep changing the war result to Cease-Fire - well, grow up. It was a de facto Chinese military victory if not a de jure one. I am an Indian too and it doesn't feel great lose, least of all a war. But Indians should get used to the fact that we lost the war to a better equipped force. Please don't change the result. TheBlueKnight (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said, BlueKnight. I am Chinese and it doesn't feel great win to me either. I think the people of both countries are great, just that the politicians sucked. Nehru was not alone -- there were stupid things Chinese leaders did in the past as well, typical example is Vietnam. Important thing is we need to live with the facts, learn from them and move on. Xingdong (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In 2010, there will be ASEAN+1, by 2013, ASEAN+3, and by 2015, ASEAN+6. That is ASEAN and China, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Australia, AND INDIA will be one free trade zone!!! They better settle their differences before then or it would be very awkward indeed!!! India is going into an election and from what I have read it is going to be a free for all. A couple of dozen parties all trying to aplease the local interests and no one is offering a coherent foreigh policy!WikiCC (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many commas

On the evening of 20 November, Nehru, seeing the disintegration of his own armies, made an appeal to the United States, for armed aid, including airstrikes, if Chinese forces continued to advance, and air cover, in case of raids by the Chinese air force.

Anyone think there is too many commas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.180.204 (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is better:

On the evening of 20 November, Nehru, seeing the disintegration of his own armies, made an appeal to the United States for armed aid. He requested airstrikes if Chinese forces continued to advance and air cover in the case of raids by the Chinese air force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.63.86 (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

lock on infobox needed

hi, this is user zoomzoom316, i forgot my password and email address so i had to register a new account. anyway

can someone put a lock on the infobox.

spammers are playing around with the numbers and having fun.

is it possible to get one of the administrators to put a lock on the infobox.

thanksDesi15 (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, Zoomzoom! Looks like you are ready to make another mess. How I miss the time without you! By the way, are you sure you forgot your login? or your account was in fact blocked? Just kidding :-) Xingdong (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

lol xingdong, you ready for round two? hahaha

on a serious note, yup i forgot my password ........ but just incase my account was blocked for

some reason. how would you go about unblocking it?  :) Desi15 (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Zoomzoom, most likely your account was blocked because of wikipedia:vandalism. In Wikipedia's definition, Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I don't know how to unblock an account, but I would suggest you in the future take the stuff to this "Talk" page first, after gaining enough consensus, make appropriate change. Or your account would be blocked again... Xingdong (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

lol when did i ever say that my account was blocked?

anyway it has nothing to do with this article.

i was in an argument with another guy on a topic related to science and he reported me to some other crackpot and then my account got......... Desi15 (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah you are right desi, it is getting really annoying. it has to be reverted back again and again. this is nonsense. Cannibal15 (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't need heroic story here

On April 26, 2009's edit, User Reenem added following:

. The Indians managed to inflict heavy losses on the Chinese in the early fighting at Walong. The Chinese lost 200 dead or wounded while the Indians lost 9 dead. However, the Chinese eventually overran the Indians. Many on both sides were killed in the final attack.

This seemed to be taken from an Indian heroic story, with emphysis on Chinese casualities, while minimized the Indians casualities. And "However, the Chinese enventually overran the Indians" didn't specify how many Indian died or wounded eventually.

As we all know, this entry is a serious history topic. Such stories look good to some people, but eventually would damage Wikipedia's objectiveness. If there is no objection, I am going to remove it. Xingdong (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should be removed. We really don't need such dramas here. BeyRel (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

what is heroic about it??? just because the facts talk about the accomplishment of indian army, it is heroic???

in that particular battle the indians inflicted heavy casualties even though they were outnumbered. why did you remove the facts???

there were no adjectives used in the statement such as "brave indian" or whatever, it was just stating facts. why did you remove it??? Cannibal15 (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the above para constitutes "heroics" per se, but there are clearly elements of dramatizations and vindications, especially in the light of the more recent additions by User Reenem . Selective presentation of "facts" can make the article mislead readers into forming an impression that the Chinese won a Pyrrhic victory, but the fact is that the Chinese suffers a casualty ratio of 1 dead for every 4 Indians killed in the entire war. This point is not disputed. While it may be factual that 200 Chinese were killed at a cost of 9 Indians in one particular engagement, it would be equally factual that the Indians suffered more horrendous losses in all other engagements. Do we need to list all these down? Is it necessary? I would settle for just a broad description of the engagement and leave out the specifics. BeyRel (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. War is cruel and sad. We need plain description of the events. No more dramatizations. Xingdong (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Dramatizations have been removed.Xingdong (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation for Indian Troop Strength

Currently the infobox gives an "estimate" of the Indian troop strength without providing the source for that "estimate". Whoever added the 10000-12000 figure should either make explicit where that figure came from, or remove that figure altogether. 128.32.77.40 (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

see the above disussion, stop hiding and sign in with your real username.Cannibal15 (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The figures are inaccurate. We definitely need more reliable sources. Before we have reliable sources, we will have to remove these numbers.Xingdong (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Here we go for the numbers released by Indian Government:

In 1965, the Defense Ministry released the figures of Indian losses: 1,383 killed, 1,696 missing, and 3,968 captured. Twenty-six of the Indians died of wounds in captivity, and the remainders were repatriated. About ninety percent of the Indian casualties were suffered in NEFA. The Indian Army later estimated that the Chinese had used three divisions in the NEFA fighting; one normal and one light division for the main thrust through Tawang, Se la and Bomdi La to the foothills, and another division for the Walong action. The Indian forces in NEFA numbered about twenty-five infantry battalions, equivalent to just under three normal infantry divisions. So the Chinese probably had only a narrow numerical superiority... Not one Chinese prisoner was taken by the Indians.[3]

This are fatality numbers. Force numbers are only estimates. Xingdong

(talk) 17:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I still say there were two Chinese POWs taken by the Indians.WikiCC (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding "The Forward Policy" back

The caption The Forward Policy was in the article before, under "Evens leading up to war" section. I don't know somehow the caption was removed without people's notice. This was a very important factor leading up to the war, so I am adding it back now. Xingdong (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is really bad

they only want to make themselves look better. this has become a useless article and will continue to become more and more useless. now the article is just useless. no hope for this article.Cannibal15 (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)i have taken great pains and saved both the infobox and the intro i dont know how many more times chinese nationalists are going to change things over and over again. it is very sad what has happened to this article.

Is that you, [Zoomzoom316]? Why you change your username again? Your account was blocked once again? Xingdong (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

who the hell is "zoomzoom"? i dont know anyone by that name.Cannibal15 (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And where did you get the 8:1 ratio(Chinese:Indian)? I read Calvin's article, it only mentioned that it was a relatively small scale battle for Chinese, like battalion and company level. Where is the number 80,000 came from? Can you provide the source you quoted? Xingdong (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Cannibal15, you talk so much like another user Zoomzoom316. That's why I asked if you were actually him. I am sorry if you are not.

And you missed the discussion earlier about adding the policy change. Of course it has profound implications. And parties involved in the discussion were Bertport and myself. Blueknight put his question after I added in, and I have replied to his concerns.

There was no mention of numbers from Maxwell's India's China War. Twenty to one is nonsense. Please provide the source if you have. Xingdong (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

did you actually read the article? you can read it from a number of websites, but here is one website where the article is: http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm Cannibal15 (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cannibal15, my advice to you is to read the article thorough, not just take a couple of words from it. The "twenty to one" was for one position in the fight only, more specifically, it was when the Rajputs moving toward the "Yumtso La" pass on October 10. You will also read something like this in exactly the same article:

On November 14, two companies of the 6th Kumanon battalion, supported by heavy mortars and field guns, moved into an assault on the hill held by the Chinese, who were believed to be company strength. After six hours of fight, they were still fifty yards away from the crest. At night, a Chinese counterattack cleared the surviving Kumanois off the hill, which was what the Indian newspapers hailed on November 16 that "Jawans swing into attack."[[4]]

Can we say Indians outnumbered Chinese with two companies to one ratio? No. This was also for one position only. PLEASE do not change the numbers you "think" it is right. We need to investigate the source fully, after discussion, then put it in. The 8:1 is highly suspecious. The numbers from Indian side seemed to be better documented. We need to dig out the numbers from the Chinese side. Xingdong (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

aaaahhhhhh cmon you KNOW very well that it was not for one position. even in the paragraph that you stated above nowhere does it mention the actual numbers of the company (the company can consist of 1 or 10 or 100 soldiers). whereas in the statement that i had shown, it clearly states the 20 to 1 ratio. the numbers at present are a rough approximation. now for god sake if you want to do this kind of stuff, then lets just forget about the article. you dont even want to accept numbers from articles such as neville maxwell who is completely pro chinese. he makes one statement about the fact that chinese vastly outnumbered indians and now you dont want to accept him.

Cannibal15, clearly you don't understand what "company" means in military. "Company" means "the smallest body of troops, consisting of a headquarters and two or three platoons"[[5]]. The paragraph I quoted means there were two Indian companies and one Chinese company involved in the battle. So the ratio(Indian:Chinese) was two to one.

As per the British policy change, I have addressed your concerns fully in my last reply. Obviously I have gained enough consensus for that.

Please note that this discussion page is only for topics related to this "Sino-indian War" entry. Cannibal15, I don't to waste my time to reply your complains and I don't want to go down to your level to discuss unrelated issues. Xingdong (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

xindong did you read the definition that you provided?

Cannibal15, you shoot your own foot by calling author of the article you took to make your point as "pro chinese" lol. Listen, in the specific November 14th battle, it was two Indian companies to one Chinese company. This was from same person's observation, so the standard was the same. So the ratio was two to one. Xingdong (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You claimed that an Indian companies had 4 or 5 soldiers each? Is it the typical way you guys distort the facts? Let's get the facts straight. Here is the definition of Indian army company:

Company: Headed by the Major, a Company comprises 120 soldiers. [6]

Xingdong (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cannibal, please do not change other user's edits(even though you just put in small punctuation). Do not change your previous edits either. Doing such things will compromise Wikipedia's integrity. Just want to remind you that there are a lot of people watching/reading this entry.

Also, please use Wikipedia in a civil manner. There are racism statements, threatening statements and derogatory statements in your previous comments. Just warn you that your manner has clearly been against Wikipedia policy, which would result in blocking of your account.

Let's make it clear, in this entry "Sino-India War", company refers to a military unit. Not just an uncertain number of people. There is no ongoing discussion with you on this topic.

According to Wikipedia policy, we need to gain enough consensus among editors, which I obviously did for all my edits. Xingdong (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

dude i did NOT change your edits. you have the "history" tool dont you. click on it and check for yourself. STOP accusing others without even bothering to investigate things properly.

what definition?? you start out by giving the definition that a company is the "smallest" body of troops in the army. one of the smallest body of troops in the army could be a single unit of 5 soldiers. then you went and took a modern indian definition of 120 troops. which one is it? i told you before whether company or no company or whatever other definition you choose to use. the TOTAL number of chinese troops was atleast 20 times greater than the indian troops. it doesn't matter whether one company or 100 companies. what is the TOTAL soldiers. seriously i am getting very tired of this discussion.

Cannibal15: you certainly think Iraqis and Afghans are superior to us -- they have more apparent caucasian facial features(as you mentioned earlier) than we indians do :-(Delhigupta (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Xingdong mate - I congratulate you on your tenacity but you do realize that this war has not been analyzed indepth like say WW-2 - very few sources in this case are neutral - my suggestion to you is not to fight over trivial things. You know what is extremely ironical to me - you look at countries in Europe like Germany, France, England, Italy right down to the Greeks - they have always been in a state of war at every point in their history. The last 50 years are an aberration - they have not actually been barbarians and attacked each other. Compare this to India and China - both civilizations have peacefully co-existed for 5000 years with the exception of a few months in 1962 - and yet we continue to squabble. TheBlueKnight (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey BlueKnight dude, you are finally out of hibernation?

To be frank, in China, people pay little attention to this war(also India). Only recently when I went to some Indian websites, holy cow, I saw so many resentful comments toward China. And this entry arose my interest. I found educating people entertaining. Looks like the Nehruism(save my words to describe) still rampant among Indians. If you see from the top of this talk page, you will see your compatriot Cannibal is one of them. Maybe you are exception...

People say history always repeats itself. I hope it won't be true. Xingdong (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And most Indians wouldn't even know that there was a war between India and China. Of course, those who do know about it are very vocal. And Nehru is not universally admired in India like Gandhi or Bose are. Personally, I give him full points for ensuring that India remained a democracy and that he conducted elections every 5 yrs even though he knew he was going to win each time. He became PM only because he was Gandhi's blue eyed boy - Sardar Patel had far more support to become PM. Anyways, I have not been in hibernation - I have watched the developments and kept my hands away - I don't want to get carried away into a debate which has no resolution. I will always see things from the Indian perspective and you will always see things from the Chinese perspective - neither perception is wrong - it is just a different way of looking at the same thing. So I shall leave the arguing to the other Indians here :) TheBlueKnight (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Darn! I should've given quotes to "Nehruism". As it has been known, through out this war, Mr.Nehru demonstrated to the world his arrogance, ignorance, stubbornness. And finally he got a bleedy nose. And the spirit your compatriot Cannibal has shown so far is typical "Nehruism". You tell me what is "Nehruism"! Xingdong (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Strictly my personal opinion - "Nehruism" is nothing but naivety. His heart was always in the right place but his head was in the clouds. Starting the Non-Aligned movement was idealistic and yet completely impractical. Despite America's great desire to be an Indian ally his refusal to do so was harakiri - once again it was misplaced idealism. I don't know how else to put it. His refusal to liberate Goa from 1947 to 1961 was absurd. He was reluctant to even integrate Hyderabad state into India. When he was away on a foreign tour, it was Sardar Patel who ordered the troops in - else Hyderabad would have seen a bloodbath between Hindus and Muslims as well thanks to Nehru's naivety. TheBlueKnight (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been following this page all along too, but I don't want to argue whether a company is 5 soldiers or a mlllion soldiers. Xindong said he did not want to waste his time with someone and then he kept doing so!!

The Blueknight is right. China and India have peacefully coexisted for about 3 thousand years except for a very short period, which I would say was the legacy of western colonial imperialism, to which both China and India were victims. In the scheme of things the Sino-Indian "war" was really a small incident, in spite of the strong feeling of some Indians have about it. Frankly, I think the Chinese is quite prepared to put the quarrel in the back burner and concentrate on the task of nation building for the future. I wish the Indians would do the same, but somehow I have the feeling that some Indian politicians want to set up China as it's enemy number 1, even ahead of Pakistan! I have seen both countries and I would guess at this point China is ahead of India by about 20 years in term of economic development. With India's democracy, it can not take a single minded pursuit of wealth like China, so it is likely to fall farther and farther back. India does have a democracy and China does not, so which country's citizens are happier? WikiCC (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCC (talk • contribs) 04:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a soapbox so perhaps you should bring up this discussion in another forum. India is very proud of its democratic traditions and will always find it easier to find allies in the West because of this heritage. China started liberalizing its economy 10 years before India did but it relies almost exclusively on exports. Every Dell or Apple PC manufactured in China - 90% of the money still belongs to Dell or Apple. The banking and accounting system in China are too opaque - no one really knows its fiscal health for sure. India as a nation is wary of China only because of the Chinese covert and overt support of Pakistan. Any country in any part of the world - from Fiji to Bolivia will tell you that Pakistan is a problem state - giving them weapons is downright irresponsible. TheBlueKnight (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan is now in more problems than it has ever been in, and look at the stuff US is giving to it! Is India wary of China because of its relation with Pakistan? or because of the border quarrel? And if India is truly wary of China, then why is there an official policy of rapproachment? India is proud of its tradition of democrcy and rightly so. Ultimately the utmost important duty of the state is to keep all its citizens adequately fed, China is not at that stage yet, but it appears to me that they are doing all they can.WikiCC (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be more interested in discussing how many soldiers in a company, as this is relevant to this entry. I don't want to spend too much of my time on discussing whether India or China is better. That is an endless topic. Xingdong (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

For me the content on Wekipedia is not that important, but I truly would like to see better relationship between China and India, and that hinges on this SIno Indian "war".WikiCC (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiCC - You are right - the USA gives weapons to Pakistan. That is precisely why India despite having much in common with the American state politically never really was an American ally. Infact it was not until 2000 that relations between the 2 thawed. No one in India actually thinks that the Chinese have territorial designs on India and vice-versa - the time and age of geographical conquests are long and buried - it is about economic conquests now. American does not need to send its troops everywhere to build a McDonalds or a Starbucks. TheBlueKnight (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Neville Maxwell

this article places too much emphasis on Maxwell's account of the war. isnt he the guy who predicted that Indian democracy would collapse in the 60's  ?? not of very sound judgement i must say. I believe he was kicked out of India and hence his bias. How many other military history books of repute did he write ??? Wikireader41 (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

the answer is NONE. the only other books he wrote were 1)China's Road to Development (Paperback) & 2)Chinas Changed Road to Development (Paperback). anybody has anything else to add. we need to remove info from his book which cannot be verified from other independent sources. very clear he was biased.Wikireader41 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

He was in India not too long ago. An indian newpaper interviewed him at that time. WikiCC (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

yes is this what you are talking about [7]. as you can see he conveniently forgets to mention Zhou Enlai's secret construction of Tibet-Sinkiang highway in mid 50's in Disputed territory of Aksai Chin as a provocation for Indians. At the same time he was talking non aggression and Panch Sheel with Nehru, Zhou was unilaterally disturbing the status quo without discussing it with New Delhi. Also not mentioned at all was 1959 Tibetan uprising against Chinese oppression and asylum given to Dalai Lama in 1959 in India as if this had no role to play causing the war. TIME has done a much better job of covering this war and the circumstances leading up to it Wikireader41 (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No source can be absolutely neutral. I don't quote sources from either India or China for well-known reasons. Third party sources including Maxwell and Calvin are relatively neutral. Keep in mind that nothing is perfect.

And you also conveniently forget that the McMahon Line was British colonial legacy and was not recognized by China. The McMahon Line can't be used as demarcation line between India and China, which India unilaterally did in the first place. And also Nehru rejected Zhou's repetitive pleas to negotiate. Finally the "Forward Policy" was the direct factor that led to the war. Maybe the classified Henderson-Brooks report will shed some light on the reasons. Xingdong (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Aksai Chin was a 'disputed territory'. Zhou himself agreed that the borders were never delimited between sinkiang and kashmir. why did he secretly build Tibet Xinjiang highway ?? not an honorable thing to do while talking Panch Sheel and seeking India's support for China's entry in UN when nobody else was willing to do that. Forward policy was in response to this construction. building of the highway started in 1951 long long before 'Forward policy' and BEFORE any serious attempts to negotiate the borders. This highway was the Main reason for forward policy. whether China agrees to McMahon line or not is China's problem. Maybe China should have kept Arunachal in 1962. India did NOT beg China to withdraw. also the brutal oppression of peaceful tibetan people and subsequent asylum in India of Dalai Lama is regarded by many sources as an important trigger for this war by turning Indian public opinion against China. Unlike Zhou Nehru was a democratically elected leader and fully accountable to Indian electorate. Perhaps Zhou did not have a clue how democracy works and thought Nehru could do anything he pleased. TIME covered this war relatively well including Zhou's role in it and I will be adding that info to this article. Henderson-Brooks report will never be public because it showed Nehrus stupidity trusting Zhou who he believed to be an honorable person Wikireader41 (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppetry is also not an honorable thing to doWikireader41 (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How was it possible to build a road secretly on someone else's property? China did not hide it either, it was on Chinese maps, from which India confirmed its existence.

Why is it a problem to show Nehru's trusting nature? which I suppose is a virtue. How do you know that is what it show anyway? have you seen it?WikiCC (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

the road was built without India knowing because aksai Chin was unoccupied. just because it was unoccupied did not give anybody right to alk in and build roads.

'Suddenly, new Chinese maps began falling like snow, extending the land grab all along the Himalayan frontier. China now claimed the southern slopes of most of the major trans-Himalayan passes so as to be able to control absolutely access routes to the North. To India's protests, Red China's Chou En-lai replied that the maps were really "old" ones that his young nation had not got around to revising. India had also been lulled in 1954 when it concluded a trade treaty with the Chinese based on the ancient Buddhist code of Panch Shila, or principles of coexistence, which guaranteed, among other things, mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity.

As it turned out, all the respect came from India. Less than a year after the Panch Shila agreement, the Chinese began building a military road between Western China and Tibet that cut 112 miles across Ladakh. So casually did India patrol the area that the road was not discovered until 1958—though it had been shown on available Chinese maps for more than a year. But only after squashing the Tibetan revolt in 1959 did the Chinese go out of their way to provoke India. ' THE HIMALAYAS

The article I referred to was an interview in DNA.

What exactly Maxwell said in his book about the war was wrong? WikiCC (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Anil Athale, the official Indian historian, does a convincing job of debunking Maxwell here. China planned the 1962 offensive years in advance for reasons that had nothing to do with Dhola, the Forward Policy, or the McMahon Line. Mao liked to keep the international pot boiling for domestic political reasons. Why target India as opposed to a randomly chosen country? Nehru had ticked Mao off by giving the Dalai Lama asylum back in 1959. Kauffner (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The biggest question Anil Athale had was how come the Chinese was able to attack 1000km apart in an well coordinated way, if their action was just reactive. This is not hard to answer. This is simply because it was a war. Failed to bring India to negotiation after repetitive pleas and the Indian forces kept on advancing forward, the Chinese had to go to war. And the war was fully analyzed by Calvin and Maxwell, as well as many other historians(here we need to exclude Chinese or Indian "official" historians). The result of the war was simple: Chinese pushed Indian army back to the McMahon Line, and unilaterally announced a cease fire. The Chinese did not take an inch of Indian territory. The political objective was simple too: to bring India back to negotiation table. Xingdong (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Because it was a war"????? What does that explain? What about Athale's point that it must have taken at least six months to prepare the logistics for the offensive? All those emotional messages about Simla and the McMahon Line -- yet here you casually describe the area south of the line as "Indian territory." Finally, it is invidious to disqualify Athale just he is Indian. Kauffner (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"It was a war" means normally estimated 6 month tasks would have to be done within just a few weeks, or sooner. Under-estimation always brings miscalculation and leads to catastrophy results. You still remember an Indian officer said at the time "a few rounds would scare the Chinese away". Indian army was facing a much stronger Chinese army that had just fought a tough war in Korea with US and its allies.

Yes, Simla and the McMahon Line are plainly illegal. No Chinese gov recognized that. From any international law perspective, the line can't be used as demarcation line between India and China. The Chinese respected the LAC, but that doesn't mean they regarded south of the line as India's territory. The Chinese still have legal claims to them, just that they want to settle them with negotiation.

Maybe as an Indian, you can't see the recognition limitation of an Indian historian. But between the lines, you can see his article is based on the assumption that "Indian had done noththing wrong". As an "official" historian, he represents his government's viewpoint. That's why his objectiveness is under question, not because he is Indian. Xingdong (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"aksai Chin was unoccupied"???!!!WikiCC (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. till chinese went in about 1951Wikireader41 (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikireader41, the NYT's article echoed what was general belief in India at the time. I am not a bit surprised to read such stories when cold war was in its high. The truth is quite a different story.

the truth is well reflected in the TIME story. later on Neville Maxwell was commissioned to concoct a story so that USA/Britain could befriend China as an ally against USSR since it looked like a good possibility. They needed somebody to paint a good picture of China so that world opinion would not go against the West using china against USSR. see the timeline . Maxwells story came out the same time as Kissingers meeting with Zhou and Nixons subsequent trip to PekingWikireader41 (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[Wikiread41], in your same logic, the NYT article was just to vilify China because the US and China were already enemies. This was politically correct at that time. So the NYT's story isn't true either. Xingdong (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

exactly. so we need to use TIME sources to provide a counterpoint to Maxwells theories about Nehrus faults which were many. Foremost being he failed to heed to repeated advice by the west not to trust Communists. He paid the price for trusting Zhou who was talking peace and building a road in disputed territory of Aksai Chin at the same time ( before entering any negotiations if I may add). The negotiations were just a ploy to buy time to complete the road and crush the Tibetans. its all there in about 20 TIME articles covering this issue.Wikireader41 (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction => 'NYT' I meant 'TIME'. The TIME is wrong doesn't prove Maxwell is incorrect. Viewpoints from TIME and other newspaper/magazines can change from time to time. There are also lots of edtorials/commentories saying India lost all its legitimacy in its border claims with China. The newspaper/magazines can not replace history books/works. Xingdong (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Before the late 19th century, British India had never had influence in that area. As you can see from the Johnson Line, the Macartney-MacDonald Line and the McMahon Line, you can see the British encroaching the traditionally Chinese lands. The British was strong at the time, so it could impose lines arbitrarily on China. However, as for Aksai Chin, Britain had never attempted to exert authority on it. Wikireader41, as you are Indian, you know how it feels when the powers forced unfair things on your head.

that is just your POV. Tibet traditionally had nothing to do with China either. Wikireader41 (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There are tons of history books about Tibet. Pick one and read. In short, since 1300, Tibet has been on and off with China, but under China's jurisdiction for most of the time. In 1913, the 13th Dalai Lama proclaimed independence, but that was not recognized by China. And the self-proclaimed independence was not recognized by any other countries either. The wikipedia Tibet has more details. Today, even the Dalai Lama recognizes the relationship between Tibetans and Chinese, and he opts to stay within China. This is not my POV. This is general knowledge. And you claim that Tibet traditionally had nothing to do with China. Xingdong (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

nice try XingDong if he really thinks he is Chinese why doesnt he pack his bags and go to China and live happily ever after ?? whats stopping him. Indians dont have him in Jail do they. Tibetans were peaceful people with no clout in the political world. That is why nobody cared about them in 1913. for last 50 years he has talked about Tibetans being a distinct people and you say he is Chinese thats just what you want to believe. what other areas were in 'Chinese jurisdiction' may I ask ?? I hope it was not India or USA or Vietnam. who decided this 'jurisdiction'?? You can read tons of books and understand none my friend Wikireader41 (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In my last comment there might be some confusion. "he opts to stay within China" should be "he opts Tibet to stay within China" --Yah, the Dalai Lama wants to go back to China. That's why there are rounds of talks btw Dalai's reps and Chinese. You can go to the Holiness' website youself to have a better understand why your statement is simply not true[[8]].

Pre-1962, both sides had activities in disputed lands. India also had road built, and other things in NFEA. You know parts of NFEA are not traditionally yours, and are also under dispute. I would say if both sides negotiated a good settlement at the time, or at least kept a LAC, life would've been much easier. Although Chinese deemed the McMahon Line as illegal, it treated it as it happened. For China, it was not difficult to achieve a consensus. However, for India, the leaders yielded to public pressure. Then the forward policy started in 1959.

For china the reason to build the road was to supply the PLA in Tibet and suppress tibetans and then launch an attack against India. The reason China treated McMahon line as it happened is because it really knew that it never had a real claim on it. it was just bringing up NEFA as it wanted Aksai Chin to build a road that would help PLA brutally suppress the Tibetans. Wikireader41 (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikireader41, that is your speculation only. The Chinese treated McMahon Line as it happened because they cherished the friendship with India. Xingdong (talk)

The Chinese would do nothing if India sent troops to within its border. However, if the troops crossed the mcmahon line, it would be quite a different story.

There are quite a few things we can clarify about this border war, and also quite a few lessons we can learn. As you know, India and China both are strong countries, and "no one can knock the other flat"(Nehru's words). We win from cooperation, and we lose from competition. Xingdong (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

that is true. the day Chinese renounce Communism and choose to be Democratic they will find that India is their best friend and proponent. You guys need to learn a lesson from good old USSR. and also India would be a good place to learn ABCs of Democratic process since basically lot of similarities between the two countries. Do you really think Communism can last forever in China ??? have a good day.Wikireader41 (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

China abandoned(although gradually) communism 30 years ago when it opened its door. Now, at best it is a authoritarian capitalism, if not a totalitarian capitalism regime. I think at this stage most people there don't want to change, they seem to enjoy the fast economy development. "Let the sleeping dog laying" is what most people say. When time comes, it will become a democratic country. S. Korea, Taiwan or Singapore are their path to follow. India definitely is a good democracy example too, to learn new lessons. Xingdong (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Really !!!! you might work on getting this article deleted then Communist Party of China If no communism in China why is this party still there. Maybe it needs a name change to Totalitarian Capitalist Party of China my friend. we can both work on that article. Getting back to this article we need a section on construction of Tibet Xinjiang Highway as an event leading to this war Wikireader41 (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The party is still there, using the same name. But ideology wise, there is no more. They know the Communism is utopia thinking, not achievable and most likely it ends up with priviledged a few and repressed mass. Now what it is doing is trying to maintain its power. Some older generations still have nostalgia for the old days, but the days are gone.

Getting back to this article, you can add more details about "Tibet Xinjiang Highway" using reliable sources. But a new section for only that would be too much. How about a "Activities in the disputed areas" to document activities on both sides? Xingdong (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Chinese do appreciate India's support in the 50's. And now China shows her support for India's bid for a permenant seat in UN Security Council. But is India ready yet? Xingdong (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC).

Absolutely. as the world largest Democracy it is a Shame that India does not have a permanent seat while some communist countries are on it. Should communist countries even be allowed membership of UN that is a more important question ? Wikireader41 (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course they can be and should be allowed not only in the UN but in the Security Council too. The US was in the Security Council when African Americans were not afforded equal rights in their own country - segregation was the norm. I don't consider that very democratic. The whole point of the UN is to bring in different countries, forms of government and forms of economy under one roof. Denying a nation a place in the UN simply because it is Communist form of government does not make sense. Using your logic should monarchies be allowed in either? That would kick the likes of United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and practically all of the Middle East out. TheBlueKnight (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

you are entitled to your opinion. I stand by mine. India should make it its official policy to get communist countries kicked out of UNWikireader41 (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then I thank God that the UN is not the International Cricket Council and that you are not Lalit Modi TheBlueKnight (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Construction of Tibet Xinjiang Highway

would propose starting a new section on this topic as clearly it was a major provocation for Indians and was done secretly starting in 1951. Indians discovery of this led to Forward policy which eventually led to war Wikireader41 (talk)

I suggest that you should stick to the much more important subject of kicking all communist countries out of UN, in the talk pages of Wiki entry UN! WikiCC (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikireader41, as per our previous discussion, a new section for this highway only would be too much. If you really want, then add a section to document activities from both sides on the disputed areas. Xingdong (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)