The tacit agreement to maintain balance is that both are patrolling inside this area yet none should build a permanent base let alone several bases inside the area - like what China and India did in the past decades. So the peace was maintained.
..
There is no such a thing as “invading India”, because the
region is disputed in the first place, god darn it!!
Is that 82 IQ so low for this kind of basic understanding?
Elements of sneaky Indian army started itching for 1962-type “forward policy” in May, 2008 (when China was busy at pre-Olympics) , when India first broke this tacit agreement by installing
several permanent structure military bases INSIDE this area!
When the sneaky India saw China kept quiet about it, it started building another permanent structure, a
military runway INSIDE this area again, during 2008 summer when China was busy at the Olympics, and landed the first Indian fixed wing military aircraft on this runway in Nov 2008!
Since then India repeatedly and periodically landed il-76 military transporters on it and started to
build another permanent structure INSIDE this area recently.
..
A few points if you could just clarify, in order of you mentioning them (apart from the emotional outbursts)
I understand both your countries had an agreement to not build permanent structures inside the so called 'red' and 'green' lines, i.e. between your differing perceptions of LAC. That's well and good. but the protest right now is over an already completed permanent structure, namely 'Raki Nala' if I'm not mistaken. these take a significant amount of time to build. why wasn't a firm complaint lodged earlier, or similar protest made when being constructed?
why wait for it to be finished, then mount this provocation? do you expect Indians to bulldoze their permanent structure just because you played mahjong and watched it being built, then made this move after it was completed? Perhaps clarification is needed on exactly what structure(s) and when they were built, to resolve the central issue in this standoff- if indeed this is the primary motive (which I doubt).
Secondly, you talk about the 'military runway' which probably refers to what's labelled as 'Advanced landing ground' in the map below. hope your eyes are not failing you, and you realize that this air strip/landing ground is well to the west of China's perceived LAC (the red line), hence not claimed by you. unless of course you're changing your stance now and are claiming the entirety of Indian administered Ladakh (or nearly one half of the J&K state under their control).
But this is not your government's position, which maintains the red line or thereabouts as the furthest extent of their claim, and Aksai chin area of ladakh as being legitimately theirs since the surprise attack in 1962 brought it within their fold. so assuming you're a sane person, I think you made a genuine mistake here in reading the map, overlooking the fact that this landing strip does not fall under disputed areas between perceived LACs, but well within Indian-administered ladakh.
and finally, please provide sources regarding 'several' il-76 transporters being landed on the strip or other permanent structures being built in the area between perceived LACs. conjecture and unfounded claims do not go far to prove any point.
Hopefully, the previous observations will dispel the oft repeated notion of this being a 'repeat of forward policy'. It clearly isn't. Nehru was shortsighted and overly confident five decades ago, but expecting their army to be the same unprepared, deer-in-headlight pacificsts today is nothing short of foolish.
And in the greater scheme of things, who is employing 'forward policy' is clear to see. where is the focus of your peoples' and media's attention, in the east or out west? Is the downstream half of the yangtze or yellow river located here, where most of your citizens and economy are concentrated?
The main reason for all this is just paranoia over proximity to your vital infrastructure, which connects two provinces overshadowed by the prospect of unrest breaking an enforced, fragile harmony. best to deal with that issue at it's core rather than offloading it onto neighbours under the guise of 'forward/backward/sidewards policy' accusations. pushing forward boundaries of empire to an unreasonable extent has never been a trait of South Asians, and neither of the Chinese until second half of last century.
~
Edit: Forgot to add possible solution. the other poster was reasonable in saying you should accept a midpoint between all your disputed areas, equidistant from the respective claim/perception lines, make that the international border for every sector and call it a day. a 63-year long day.
