What's new

Featured Not a question of if, but when China will strike - Indian Narrative

DavidsSling

FULL MEMBER
Sep 30, 2019
766
0
671
Country
Israel
Location
Australia
The Chinese won’t change. Just like the leopard, the Chinese don’t change their spots. This became evident once again during the week, when Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, Wang Wenbin said, “For the Chinese side, we have been honouring the agreements signed between China and India. We are committed to peace and stability in the border area. Meanwhile, we are committed to our sovereignty and territorial integrity.” In other words, in Chinese view, to repeat a cliché, “might is right”. So China will continue to shift the LAC to its advantage and if India stands up to it, China will push India towards war, or try to tie it down along the LAC, thus wearing it out and draining its resources. And all the while playing the victim.

It’s all about teaching India a lesson for trying to be a global power, about scaring away potential investors, as well as about sending a message not only to the rest of the world and the minnows who stand up to it, but also a challenge to the United States by treating India as its proxy. But then that is how the Chinese are—always have been. The problem is that it is Indians who still believe that the Chinese can be made to mend their way, see reason, as External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar hoped ahead of the Moscow meeting with his counterpart Wang Yi.


The outcome of that meeting was a five-point agreement, which incorporated the oft-repeated clichés that have become a part of any India-China dialogue—“differences should not become disputes”; “abide by all the existing agreements and protocol on China-India boundary affairs”; “border troops…should continue their dialogue, quickly disengage, maintain proper distance and ease tensions”. Meaningless words, considering China is consistently guilty of violating each and every of the five points. Worse, the agreement lays a minefield for India for it talks about disengaging and retreating from current positions, which means India vacating all the heights it presently occupies on the bank of Pangong Tso, overlooking PLA’s Moldo garrison—which is now a sitting duck—and thus losing the tactical advantage it has. And the 14-15 June clash at Galwan is proof of what disengagement means to the Chinese.

This is not the time for hoping that China will see reason. This is not the time to give China a “face-saving exit as India cannot take them on”, as is being whispered in certain quarters. In this context, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s words in Parliament were, for a change, candid: “China says one thing and does the opposite.” His statement that India wanted peace but was ready for war is welcome. It is not every day that such strong statements come from India’s power corridor, which has had decades of practice in staying silent on China’s aggression for fear of angering Beijing, thus exposing itself to be weak and vulnerable. It’s hoped that the Defence Minister’s words will not be mere words and India will not capitulate tamely in its attempt to make peace. China is a bully, which needs to be taught a lesson. The bully needs to realise that it has underestimated India; that it will have to pay a price for its aggression, in both economic and military terms. That it cannot be business as usual when soldiers of the two countries are engaged in an eyeball to eyeball standoff, with the prospect of a military conflict—possibly even an actual war—hovering on the horizon.

Make no mistake, China under Xi Jinping is desperate for a victory. And in their eyes, India is the lowest hanging fruit for this. It is not a question of if, but when China will strike! The only thing that will deter China from its misadventure is India striking suitable alliances—including working towards a Nato-like construct for the Quad and Quad-Plus countries, where every signing member is treaty-bound to come to each other’s assistance when attacked by China. The need of the day is an Indo-Pacific charter, with the firm objective of containing China. If the Chinese Communist Party is afraid of anything it is afraid of a united world standing up to it. But in pursuing such a policy India cannot be seen to be a reluctant ally, which is still waffling around, unable to choose a side, in the name of a long dead non alignment, while hanging onto the coattails of countries that are supping with China.

Chinese have already won, the war is over.
 

DavidsSling

FULL MEMBER
Sep 30, 2019
766
0
671
Country
Israel
Location
Australia
Nope until AP retaken, we won nothing. Lol
China has won, they have given the Indians a huge scare by killing Indian troops without even firing a shot, the rest is going to be a walkover.

It's good that there will be no waste of life when China walks across the border without firing a bullet.
 

Baibars_1260

FULL MEMBER
Sep 12, 2020
184
0
101
Country
India
Location
United Kingdom
He know ladakh quite well. He is ex military. I believe him. I also believe that it's not easy to break indian defensive layers. It's hard. Yes indians will face massive firepower but remember, India also has bigger army so fatalities for them doesn't matter until China pushes them deep. China can push them but it will be absolute bloodbath. It's not easy. When an army decides to defend an area, it's quite difficult to break through. I remember Pak army didn't even have reinforcement when India wanted to invade in 2001 but reinforcement arrived later. Obviously it was indian mistake not to attack pakistan. after complete reinforcement, attacking any army is difficult.
The comparison is not quite accurate. In an all out war re-enforcements and reserves are all taken into consideration by the war gamers. Casualties are cynically counted as a % loss to the attackers. The Germans were fully
aware of the Soviet strength and fighting capabilities, and their weaknesses. The Soviet Union had lost a war with much smaller Finland just a few months before and two years earlier barely managed a stalemate with Japan ( The Khalkin Gol War). Based on these precedents the Germans made the same argument against the fighting abilities of the Soviet Union that today is being made about China. So since China didn't perform well against Vietnam and has had no fighting experience it cannot take on an experienced army. The Soviet Union could not fight the Finns or the Japanese so they can't fight the Germans who had conquered all of Western and Central Europe and bottled up the mighty British with their Empire onto their tiny island. The earlier impression about the Germans was similar by Britain and France. Oh.., the Germans can't fight. They lost World War 1 and half their country. Certainly they have learned their lesson. The same is being said of Pakistan by Indians. Oh...we defeated Pakistan "five" times and they lost half their territory and surrendered 90,000 troops. We will do that again should they try any nonsense.,
Nobody except wise Generals like Sam Maneckshaw know that for a defeat to be permanent the enemy's defence apparatus has to be dismantled completely and the enemy's industrial and economic potential completely ruined or completely controlled through occupation. Anything short of that a determined adversary will rise again. The USA did this to Japan as the Allied powers did this to Germany after World War 2 . Israel has done this to its enemies somewhat. India's case is intriguing.
Having fought a 7 times smaller Pakistan and "defeated" it 5 times the threat from this 7 times smaller adversary keeps increasing after each conflict. In 1947 Pakistan had no armor, navy, or air force and India lost a third of Kashmir. However the fighting was confined to the front, and 1947 war was hailed as a victory. The defeated adversary then somehow acquired an air force, a navy and armor and a war was fought 18 years later with full use of air force, armor and navy. Kashmir was not recovered. Six years later a civil war in the Eastern half of Pakistan presented an opportunity which any adversary would have taken. The war was fought. The eastern half seceded . A third of Kashmir still remained firmly with a "defeated" Pakistan.
As Pakistan expanded and modernized its armed forces, India acquired nuclear capabilities hoping this would make Pakistan see "sense" and admit defeat. Unfortunately Pakistan was not impressed and acquired nuclear weapons of its own.
Question to the Wise in India:
Where do we go from here.
Seventy three years, five wars, and 150+ nuclear weapons on either side pointing at each other.
As a last word. An interesting incident.
December 1971. East Pakistan had seceded and military operations were only continuing on the Western front. The UN ceasefire resolution had been passed and India was asked to accept.
When Prime Minister Indira Gandhi asked Indian COAS Field Marshal Sam Maneckshaw if an offensive similar to East Pakistan one could be launched to capture the rest of Pakistan and Kashmir.
General Maneckshaw replied:
Madam, yes it is possible.But just remember that the Pakistani soldier in West Pakistan is different from his counterpart who just surrendered in the East. There they were an occupation force. In the West the Pakistani soldier will be fighting for his home and land. He will never surrender. Even if the armed forces are defeated a resistance would most certainly continue. If you are willing to accept a minimum of 250,000 dead in the opening phases of the campaign we can plan an offensive "
India agreed to a ceasefire. The stark difference is no other nation would have taken that step. 250,000 dead would be acceptable to Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union if it meant a permanent elimination of an adversary.,
 

SuperStar20

FULL MEMBER
Jun 6, 2020
888
-1
332
Country
India
Location
United States
Figaro,
For WC Abhinandan's return there was a media event with people waving flags and painting their cheeks with saffron, white and green stripes; as there should have been to welcome any hero home. How come there were no flag wavers and people clapping to receive the 30 captured soldiers ( which included at least two officers and other ranks ) when the PLA handed them over 10 days after capturing them at Galwan. WC Abhinandan was returned in 60 hours. There was no media frenzy to free these brave men, and there were no demonstrations in front of the Chinese embassy. Many of those captured had fought valiantly ( like WC Abhinandan) and had been severely injured.
Why this difference?
Those who resisted capture at Galwan and were injured are heroes too.
You looks familiar with history and militarily operations. Lets us believe that china captured 30 Indian soldiers and returned after 10 days. What is your take, Why did china returned? India had some leverage or made some concession?
 

Bagheera

BANNED
Jan 16, 2013
4,477
-43
1,422
Country
India
Location
India
I don't think China is "desperate" for any "victory". It's very calm and calculating and can play the attrition game. Indians like to think China is desperate or backed into the corner. This idea helps Indians sleep better.
Why does it take a long drawn calculations for China to take the territories it claims? Is it so tough for superpower Chinese to deal with Indians?

- PRTP GWD
 

Baibars_1260

FULL MEMBER
Sep 12, 2020
184
0
101
Country
India
Location
United Kingdom
You looks familiar with history and militarily operations. Lets us believe that china captured 30 Indian soldiers and returned after 10 days. What is your take, Why did china returned? India had some leverage or made some concession?
You tell me sir.
It is not "let us believe ". This was widely reported in the international and Indian media both.
Here are the possibilities.Please choose :
1. China was trembling in its shoes fearing an Indian Brahmastra attack so it let the prisoners go. This would be just as it let 4000 prisoners go home after holding them for 7 months. They feared the Brahmastra in 1962 as well, which is why they let every prisoner ( including generals ) return.

2. The prisoners were eating too much or needed constant medical attention, neither of which the Chinese were in a position to afford. The Chinese also ran out of tea.

3. The prisoners were crying all night in pain keeping them awake.

4. A goodwill propaganda gesture so that the prisoners go back saying "The Chinese are not so bad after all"

Take your pick, Which do you think is more likely?
 

Baibars_1260

FULL MEMBER
Sep 12, 2020
184
0
101
Country
India
Location
United Kingdom
You looks familiar with history and militarily operations. Lets us believe that china captured 30 Indian soldiers and returned after 10 days. What is your take, Why did china returned? India had some leverage or made some concession?
A reminder:
My question was not why China let the prisoners go, my question was why they were not accorded the same welcome as WC Abhinandan.
The question is still relevant.
 

SuperStar20

FULL MEMBER
Jun 6, 2020
888
-1
332
Country
India
Location
United States
You tell me sir.
It is not "let us believe ". This was widely reported in the international and Indian media both.
Here are the possibilities.Please choose :
1. China was trembling in its shoes fearing an Indian Brahmastra attack so it let the prisoners go. This would be just as it let 4000 prisoners go home after holding them for 7 months. They feared the Brahmastra in 1962 as well, which is why they let every prisoner ( including generals ) return.

2. The prisoners were eating too much or needed constant medical attention, neither of which the Chinese were in a position to afford. The Chinese also ran out of tea.

3. The prisoners were crying all night in pain keeping them awake.

4. A goodwill propaganda gesture so that the prisoners go back saying "The Chinese are not so bad after all"

Take your pick, Which do you think is more likely?
Lets talk about Galwan clash
VK Singh told
 

Baibars_1260

FULL MEMBER
Sep 12, 2020
184
0
101
Country
India
Location
United Kingdom
Why does it take a long drawn calculations for China to take the territories it claims? Is it so tough for superpower Chinese to deal with Indians?

- PRTP GWD
Not really.
China got what it wanted for now.
It has largely diminished the threat to the CPEC corridor by posturing all along the DBOD road. What is the long term goal is not known at this time.,
 

Baibars_1260

FULL MEMBER
Sep 12, 2020
184
0
101
Country
India
Location
United Kingdom
Lets talk about Galwan clash
VK Singh told
Wish this statement was made by the current army chief or MOD ( just as the MOD announced shooting down a Pakistani F-16 after WC Abhinandan was captured). However the general retired in 2012 and is currently the State Transport Minister. Don't know if a single statement to one newspaper counts.
But my question is not who or how many were captured but why no media event. If Chinese soldiers were captured then why were they not photographed and filmed similar to the surrender ceremony in East Pakistan?
Shouldn't victories by the armed forces be lauded and publicized?
Indians were dancing in the streets on the Pakistani surrender in 1971. Don't they deserve some good news such as a video showing Chinese soldiers laying down their arms?
Isn't the question relevant?
 

Bagheera

BANNED
Jan 16, 2013
4,477
-43
1,422
Country
India
Location
India
Not really.
China got what it wanted for now.
It has largely diminished the threat to the CPEC corridor by posturing all along the DBOD road. What is the long term goal is not known at this time.,
What it wants now, what it wants in future. Long term goals. Short term goals. 55 years wait for Ladakh clashes. Why doesn't China simply finish it quickly and be done with it? China is a hyperpower, isn't it? So why so much planning and delays? @PAKISTANFOREVER @Mangus Ortus Novem @saiyan0321 @Sal12 @CriticalThought @ARMalik @Indus Pakistan

- PRTP GWD
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Top