China-India Geopolitics: News & Discussions

[Guynextdoor2]

Said he is an impotent

and a well placed abuse suddenly removed rural poverty in china.


Oh wait...you were referring to Modi....yeah, we can all see who is impotent

 

[帅的一匹]

and a well placed abuse suddenly removed rural poverty in china.


Oh wait...you were referring to Modi....yeah, we can all see who is impotent

Since Modi becomed the PM, the entire region turns unstable. And the relationship between India and his neighbours keep deteriorating.

 

[Akasa]

For anyone wishing to look further into the geographic context, this is where most of this article's information comes from: https://thewire.in/159407/doklam-india-china-bhutan/

A summary of the issue:

• The 1890 Sino-British Treaty marks the beginning of the boundary at what it thought was Mount Gipmochi
• However, 20th century surveys have incorrectly placed Mt. Gipmochi
• Modern databases show that Mt. Gipmochi is actually 5 km east of where earlier maps presumed it to be; this means that Mt. Gipmochi is actually an inaccurate marker for the location of the tri-junction
• As such (and continuing from my above point), the tri-junction was actually intended to be near modern-day Batang La (as per Indian & Bhutanese claims) but was mis-labeled by the text of the 1890 treaty
• Hence, any Chinese road building in what it currently thinks is Chinese territory would actually be in Bhutanese territory if we go by modern day databases and maps
• The aforementioned road building would then be a violation of the 1998 Sino-Bhutanese agreement to maintain a status quo
• In short, China is exerting its claims based on the wording of the British Treaty alone, which is devoid of any correct geographic context

However, some problems do arise with this argument:

• The article does mention that Mt. Gipmochi has been incorrectly surveyed many times, but the author uses a 1861 map (which predates the Sino-British Treaty by some 29 odd years)
• If a 1890-ish map shows an accurate (by modern standards) location of Mt. Gipmochi, then China's claims are valid since the tri-junction would be located in the same place as China claims and not at Batang La (5 km to the east)
• If a 1890-ish map shows an outdated location for Mt. Gipmochi, then India/Bhutan's claims are valid since the Sino-British Treaty would be referring to modern-day Batang La (but incorrectly worded it as "Mt. Gipmochi" due to inaccurate surveys at that particular time)
• Additionally, India's treaty with Bhutan allows Indian troops to intervene at the behest of Bhutan. Thus far, there has been no evidence that Bhutan has requested the deployment of Indian military personnel.
• Hence, both sides are at fault for either instigating or escalating this situation. Nevertheless, it goes to show just how important surveying is (for reference, the 1962 Sino-Indian War was a direct result of improper surveying done to demarcate the McMahon Line).

I'll use some figures to illustrate my point:

Figure 1: this 1861 British Map incorrectly locates Mt. Gipmochi. In modern day maps, it would be located 5 km to the east of what is depicted here. Since the treaty marks the tri-junction to be in reference to Mt. Gipmochi, then the tri-junction should actually be near Batang La (if the British used an outdated map to formulate the Treaty).

Figure 2: this is a simplified map to show the extent of discrepancies between Chinese and Indian claims. The Chinese red dotted line originates from Mt. Gipmochi. What the Chinese fail to mention is that the British thought Mt. Gipmochi was where Batang La is according to modern map. Hence, the British really meant the tri-junction to start at Batang La -- this is consistent with Indian and Bhutanese claims.

Figure 3: this brings all three points together. Mt. Gipmochi is clearly pinned, as are the Doklam region and Batang La. If the Chinese are going by purely the text of the 1890 Sino-British Treaty, then its road under construction would be within Chinese territory. However, if the British were indeed incorrect in surveying the location of the Gipmochi mountain (and hence intending the tri-junction to actually start at Batang La), then the road would be already inside Bhutanese territory. The latter scenario would be a direct violation of the 1998 Sino-Bhutanese Agreement to maintain the current border status quo.

====

Well, there you have it; I am trying to be as impartial as possible but I've also offered a few scenarios and mentioned a few gaps in both sides' arguments. The main issue at hand is whether international law (if it ever gets exercised) would go by the text of the Sino-British Treaty or by the geographic context -- the key lies in whether a 1890s-ish British map of Mt. Gipmochi exists, and whether that map follows the modern-day survey or an outdated early-1800s version.

 

[Dungeness]

Where is the "promised support" from the international society when "the biggest democracy" needs the most?



Doklam stand-off: India’s diplomatic efforts waning
NAYANIMA BASU

Sushma Swaraj


NEW DELHI, AUGUST 13:


Tension between India and China over the Doklam stand-off continues to remain high with both sides refusing to withdraw their respective troops from the India-Bhutan-China tri-junction area even as diplomatic efforts by New Delhi seem to be waning.

While the Border Personnel Meeting (BPM) held on Friday between senior army officials of both the countries remained inconclusive, India continued to coax China to come to the table for a diplomatic solution to the issue, sources told BusinessLine.

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj is leaving no stone unturned to reach out to some key neighbours to shore up support for efforts in tackling an aggressive China.

Recently, on the sidelines of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Nepal, Swaraj met her Nepalese counterpart Damcho Dorji and discussed the matter.

She also met the Nepalese Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba separately to understand Kathmandu’s stance on the entire saga and also to garner support for India.

But Nepal’s Deputy Prime Minister Krishna Bahadur Mahara has made it clear that the Himalayan Kingdom will not get dragged into the confrontation. Without taking any sides, Bhutan said it hoped that the matter will be resolved peacefully.

“The India-China standoff in Doklam is also a story of the failure of diplomacy, which has failed at several levels, between India and China in defusing tensions, and between India and the other members of the international community, who have not taken an unambiguous pro-India position on the Doklam standoff. Moreover, the ongoing crisis also underscores the futility of the Sino-Indian border talks that have been going on for several years,” said Happymon Jacob, Associate Professor of Disarmament Studies, Organization and Disarmament at the School of International Studies, JNU.

India is hopeful that it will be able to build a support base with Nepal in its China policy once Prime Minister Deuba comes calling on August 23.

Sources also said that the stand-off may well continue till the 19th Communist Party Congress is held and till then India is also likely to station its troops at Doklam.

“We need to see through the rhetoric and understand what is happening on the ground. Both the governments and army will do what needs to be done. The stand-off is likely to continue until a diplomatic solution brings it to a logical end,” said Lt Gen SL Narasimhan, Member, National Security Advisory Board.


http://www.thehindubusinessline.com...-diplomatic-efforts-waning/article9816435.ece

 

[Guynextdoor2]

@Dungeness even without diplomatic support you sissies are unable to escalate.

 

[Dungeness]

@Dungeness even without diplomatic support you sissies are unable to escalate.

We don't need to fire a single shot, but we can still show you your rightful place. The cold war just begun. Enjoy!

 

[sinait]

There is no leader in CHina that comes close to Modi. IF anything the Diklam incident shows the rising quality of India's leadership and that in the end democracies throw up far better leaders than dictatorships. As for your 'progress' we can see it has lots of 'Chinese characteristics'- notably a good way of hiding how large parts of your population live under $2 per day

SURE, ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
No one comes close to Modi in making enemies out of their neighbors and among Indian Hindus and Indian Non Hindus.
See how cleverly China salvaged relationship with the Philippines from being adversaries to become friends and partners.
When it comes to win win relationships China wins hands down.
When it is about making enemies out of friends and neighbors and petty quarrels Modi wins hands down,
Nobody comes close.
.

 

[Suriya]

China will make an amazing super power .

Google Map is blocked in China. There is no other map in China that can show the detailed border line between China, India, and Bhutan.

 

[Dungeness]

O we see what place you are showing us...sissy.

Chinese are not barbarians, we use brain to fight and win. You don't understand:

 

[war&peace]

India...are you serious? Do you think that the world will help you against China? .....All you will get is lip-service and that too not officially because the world knows your claims are false and China is the true power.

 

[Gadkari]

For anyone wishing to look further into the geographic context, this is where most of this article's information comes from: https://thewire.in/159407/doklam-india-china-bhutan/

A summary of the issue:

• The 1890 Sino-British Treaty marks the beginning of the boundary at what it thought was Mount Gipmochi
• However, 20th century surveys have incorrectly placed Mt. Gipmochi
• Modern databases show that Mt. Gipmochi is actually 5 km east of where earlier maps presumed it to be; this means that Mt. Gipmochi is actually an inaccurate marker for the location of the tri-junction
• As such (and continuing from my above point), the tri-junction was actually intended to be near modern-day Batang La (as per Indian & Bhutanese claims) but was mis-labeled by the text of the 1890 treaty
• Hence, any Chinese road building in what it currently thinks is Chinese territory would actually be in Bhutanese territory if we go by modern day databases and maps
• The aforementioned road building would then be a violation of the 1998 Sino-Bhutanese agreement to maintain a status quo
• In short, China is exerting its claims based on the wording of the British Treaty alone, which is devoid of any correct geographic context

However, some problems do arise with this argument:

• The article does mention that Mt. Gipmochi has been incorrectly surveyed many times, but the author uses a 1861 map (which predates the Sino-British Treaty by some 29 odd years)
• If a 1890-ish map shows an accurate (by modern standards) location of Mt. Gipmochi, then China's claims are valid since the tri-junction would be located in the same place as China claims and not at Batang La (5 km to the east)
• If a 1890-ish map shows an outdated location for Mt. Gipmochi, then India/Bhutan's claims are valid since the Sino-British Treaty would be referring to modern-day Batang La (but incorrectly worded it as "Mt. Gipmochi" due to inaccurate surveys at that particular time)
• Additionally, India's treaty with Bhutan allows Indian troops to intervene at the behest of Bhutan. Thus far, there has been no evidence that Bhutan has requested the deployment of Indian military personnel.
• Hence, both sides are at fault for either instigating or escalating this situation. Nevertheless, it goes to show just how important surveying is (for reference, the 1962 Sino-Indian War was a direct result of improper surveying done to demarcate the McMahon Line).

I'll use some figures to illustrate my point:

Figure 1: this 1861 British Map incorrectly locates Mt. Gipmochi. In modern day maps, it would be located 5 km to the east of what is depicted here. Since the treaty marks the tri-junction to be in reference to Mt. Gipmochi, then the tri-junction should actually be near Batang La (if the British used an outdated map to formulate the Treaty).
View attachment 419007

Figure 2: this is a simplified map to show the extent of discrepancies between Chinese and Indian claims. The Chinese red dotted line originates from Mt. Gipmochi. What the Chinese fail to mention is that the British thought Mt. Gipmochi was where Batang La is according to modern map. Hence, the British really meant the tri-junction to start at Batang La -- this is consistent with Indian and Bhutanese claims.
View attachment 419008

Figure 3: this brings all three points together. Mt. Gipmochi is clearly pinned, as are the Doklam region and Batang La. If the Chinese are going by purely the text of the 1890 Sino-British Treaty, then its road under construction would be within Chinese territory. However, if the British were indeed incorrect in surveying the location of the Gipmochi mountain (and hence intending the tri-junction to actually start at Batang La), then the road would be already inside Bhutanese territory. The latter scenario would be a direct violation of the 1998 Sino-Bhutanese Agreement to maintain the current border status quo.
View attachment 419009

====

Well, there you have it; I am trying to be as impartial as possible but I've also offered a few scenarios and mentioned a few gaps in both sides' arguments. The main issue at hand is whether international law (if it ever gets exercised) would go by the text of the Sino-British Treaty or by the geographic context -- the key lies in whether a 1890s-ish British map of Mt. Gipmochi exists, and whether that map follows the modern-day survey or an outdated early-1800s version.

Since Mt. Gipmochi IS the marker, the old survey maps would not matter.

The boundary would start from Mt. Gipmochi as per the treaty.

This means that the territory is Bhutanese territory.

For example, if I was to say that my house is opposite to a particular shop and I ask for Dominos to deliver my pizza in 30 mins, and if the google map shows the shop in a different location by mistake, and the delivery gets delayed more than 30 mins, I would still be legally eligible to have my free pizza.

Since that shop is the marker, the delivery guy has to first find the shop and Then find my home. He cannot blindly go by what the map tells him, or the GPS co-ordinates that it gives. The LANDMARK is always the first point of reference.


I too have attempted to be fair and neutral in this matter.

 

[war&peace]

That is all you can come up with? I am actually laughing.

India govt overrates and overestimates itself in terms of diplomacy and military power but whenever a reality check comes, it fails miserably but astonishingly indian people have very short memory so they forget the lesson learned and get ready for a new insult and embarrassment...shameless aren't they

 

[Akasa]

Since Mt. Gipmochi IS the marker, the old survey maps would not matter.

The boundary would start from Mt. Gipmochi as per the treaty.

This means that the territory is Bhutanese territory.

For example, if I was to say that my house is opposite to a particular shop and I ask for Dominos to deliver my pizza in 30 mins, and if the google map shows the shop in a different location by mistake, and the delivery gets delayed more than 30 mins, I would still be legally eligible to have my free pizza.

Since that shop is the marker, the delivery guy has to first find the shop and Then find my home. He cannot blindly go by what the map tells him, or the GPS co-ordinates is gives. The LANDMARK is always the first point of reference.

Mt. Gipmochi is the marker as per the text of the Sino-British Treaty. The premise is that the old British maps were inaccurate, and that modern surveys of the region places Mt. Gipmochi 5km east of where it was originally (and incorrectly) marked, meaning that the tri-junction is in the same place as India & Bhutan claim -- near Batang La.

It's late in the evening and I don't wish to pore over maps again, but that's essentially the root of the dispute. A similar discrepancy in geological surveys indirectly led to the unfortunate 1962 war over the McMahon Line / Thag La.

 

[Dungeness]

India govt overrates and overestimates itself in terms of diplomacy and military power but whenever a reality check comes..it fails miserably but astonishingly indian people have very short memory so they forget the lesson learned and get ready for a new insult and embarrassment...shameless aren't they

The most interesting thing is they don't even get any support from Bhutan, their "little brother" they volunteered their "help" for. How pathetic!

Sushma lied about international support to India on Doklam

https://www.nationalheraldindia.com...bout-international-support-to-india-on-doklam

 

[Gadkari]

Mt. Gipmochi is the marker as per the text of the Sino-British Treaty. The premise is that the old British maps were inaccurate, and that modern surveys of the region places Mt. Gipmochi 5km east of where it was originally (and incorrectly) marked, meaning that the tri-junction is in the same place as India & Bhutan claim -- near Batang La.

It's late in the evening and I don't wish to pore over maps again, but that's essentially the root of the dispute. A similar discrepancy in geological surveys indirectly led to the unfortunate 1962 war over the McMahon Line / Thag La.

So what you mean is that the position MARKED in the Map was INACCURATELY recognized as Mt. Gipmochi. Alternatively Mt. Gipmochi could very well be the marker, but it was inaccurately marked in the map.

Which takes precedence ? the Map or the text ?

This is truly a vexing issue since either could have been the real Marker.

Now considering the disputed status of this territory, it was wrong on part of the Chinese to take a unilateral decision to do construction there. Indians did the right thing in view of this aggression and the Indian demand also seems reasonable.

The chinese demand is unreasonable.