Let's not play games here, you're Indian.
Right, yes that video. The question here where is the Indian footage, heck even an edited version? There's nothing which makes your comments about the credibility of the video just hypocritical.
There were skirmishes but not 'multiple battles' as you put it. The clear indicator of there having not been previous battles was that there were no deaths. The deaths only occurred during the big clash.
The rest of your post is so ludicrous I don't know where to start. The fact they were unable to capture a single Chinese soldier shows they were overwhelmed and taken out of the fight quickly.
As for killing 60, have you ever read accounts of trench fighting in the first World War? Hand to hand fighting, whilst capable firearms are around was ineffective at gaining any battle turning advantage. It was tiring and attritional. You can't simply kill troops with one blow each, especially those who were prepared for melee combat.
Let's say they did, how on earth can you leave your commanders and so many men behind? How is that evidence of a clear victory for the Indian troops? Even YouTube fights between groups of football hooligans show that the side which leaves its leaders and men on the floor has lost.
Another key bit of damming evidence is that the Indian military admitted that they had no one missing after the clash i.e. they were unaware totally of the locations of their own men, once they had been scattered after the battle.
Let me understand this.
1. because the Indian side did not go with camera's they must have lost.
2. The fact there's NO video showing when the 10 soldiers were taken, does not make a difference to your narrative. Oddly you don't hold China to the same level of analysis i.e. They had video being shot, why did they show when the capture took place? By golly, you know it happened in the timeline you decided it happened
3. You claimed deaths only occurred in the big battle- you know this how?
4. You pontificate that since no Chinese capture occurs, it means Indians lost. Could it have been they were not going for any capture? A capture order comes from a commander typically.
5. leaving a commander behind. That commander could have been part of the first 20 to patrol, could have been part of the second group who went there trying to settle it peacefully
6. In your wars with India, did you lose every war because you left your commanders that were captured?
7. finally - you say the evidence is damning because India initially said none were captured but quickly updated everyone. HOWEVER, it is not damning when the Chinese said no one died on their side. That's a convenient assessment
Thanks for indulging, my advice is there are only two knowns, the rest is unknown...Chinese hid their deaths and 20 Indian soldiers died. I chose to believe international accounts that say anywhere from 35-60 of the Chinese soldiers died. The Chinese repeatedly lie, have no honor when they hid their soldier's deaths, and that's my reasons for going with other's assessment
