IAF sees China, Pakistan as challenges, not threats

[rissriva]

Didn't Pakistan cancelled an large order of F-16 because of the lack of funds. But its surprising that Pakistan, with such as small economy, bring such a grief to India. Maybe its because even though India has more money, there is also more waste, technical leadership and strategic foresight.

You are true, that Pakistan is acting in a way to bring wounds to India and let it bleed. But Pakistan is not isolated either. if both countries bleed together, pakistan will be the one dead first.

 

[CardSharp]

Big correction here. India never started any of the conflicts,

About the Polo report, re-read the first para of the first of the 3 papers. Enuff said.

Yes surely then you'd have read the part where the polo report placed the blame for starting the war on Nehru? or is he not Indian?

 

[CardSharp]

I'm not going to format it but it's legible.

Nehru s p o k e i n t o n e s of s t r i k i n g b e l l i g e r e n c y . He
promised p u b l i c l y i n November t h a t new p o s t s w o u l d be set
up so t h a t t e r r i t o r y h e l d by t h e Chine s e c o u l d be " r e c o v e r e d . "
''Half a dozen new p o s t s " a l r e a d y had been e s t a b l i s h e d , h e
s a i d , and more would be s e t up.

Chine s e c h a r g e s of I n d i a n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e
i n i t i a l provoc a t ion- - i . e . , new p o s t s i n s p r i n g 196l--seem
t o be v a l i d . Although t h e I n d i a n c o u n t e r c h a r g e complained
of a new C h i n e s e p o s t s e t up a t t h e same t i m e , t h e y a d m i t t e d
p r i v a t e l y t h a t (1) t h i s p o s t was w i t h i n t h e C h i n e s e claim
l i n e of 1960 and (2) it had been a f t e r t h e I n d i a n
p o s t s had be en e s t a b l i s h e d .

The report goes on to debunk your little Cuba theory. (remember this is the Americans themselves)

The border dispute had a momentum of its own. The
Chinese a t t a c k w o u l d almo s t c e r t a i n l y have been made even
if there had been no Cuban crisis and e v e n if t h e r e had been
no Sino - Soviet d i s p u t e . Whether t h e C h i n e s e w o u l d have
a t t a c k e d precisely when t h e y d i d if t h e r e had been no Cuban
m i s s i l e c r i s i s is c w c t u r a l , b u t the Soviet charge that
the Chinese attacked because of the opportunity p r o v i d e d
them at that time is overstated

Freedom of information act, CIA website.
http://www.foia.cia.gov/CPE/POLO/polo-09.pdf

 

[CardSharp]

More about Nehru in the CIA's polo report.

Attempt ing to impede further criticism of h i s " soft " policy , Nehru spoke in tones of striking belligerency , he began, had changed p r o g r e s s i v e l y i n I n d i a ' s f a v o r be c aus e of r e c e n t l y s t r e n g t h e n e d d e f e n s e s . promised :

Quote from Nehru
. ,
. .

We will continue t o build t h e s e things up
so that u l t i m a t e l y we may be in a position
t o take e f f e c t i v e a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r such
t e r r i t o r y a s is in their possession .

T h i s was t h e most e x p l i c i t p u b l i c s t a t e m e n t t h a t
Nehru had made regarding an intention to t a k e military action to r e g a i n l a n d h e l d by Chinese forces .
The Chinese for good reason later cited it to demonstrate I n d i a n responsibility f o r border clashes .

So what we have here is a naive fool afraid to"look soft" in front of his friends and the nation, thus choosing to go to war and spill blood unnecessarily.

 

[Royan]

You have to be better than others in order to be chanllenged.

However, the current PLAAF is much superior than the InAF!!

Get real!!!!

nearly60% or more of the IAF can show up on the India's Northern Front .
Can you divert that much of the PLAF towards India, with USN,Korea,Japs to your east and Russians to your north????

 

[gubbi]

More about Nehru in the CIA's polo report.

So what we have here is a naive fool afraid to"look soft" in front of his friends and the nation, thus choosing to go to war and spill blood unnecessarily.

How conveniently you stick to that only one section.
Heres how the whole mess starts:

SECTION I . (1950-1959)
Summary
D e v e l o p m e n t s b e t w e e n l a t e 1950 and l a t e 1959 were marked
b y Chinese m i l i t a r y s u p e r i o r i t y w h i c h , combined w i t h c u n n i n g
d i p l o m a t i c d e c e i t , c o n t r i b u t e d f o r n i n e y e a r s t o Mew D e l h i ' s
r e l u c t a n c e t o c h a n g e i t s p o l i c y from f r i e n d s h i p t o o p e n hos -
t i l i t y t o w a r d t h e P e i p i n g r e g i m e . I t emerges t h a t a b o v e a l l
o t h e r s Nehru h i m s e l f - - w i t h h i s v i e w t h a t the C h i n e s e Conununist
l e a d e r s were a m e n a b l e t o g e n t l e m a n l y p e r s u a s i o n - - r e f u s e d t o
c h a n g e t h i s p o l i c y u n t i l l o n g a f t e r P e i p i n g ' s b a s i c h o s t i l t i t y
r e - t h i n k h i s C h i n a p o l i c y , N e h r u c o n t i n u e d t o see a b o r d e r
war as futile and reckless course for India, His answer to Peiping was to call for a strengthening of the Indian economy
t o p r o v i d e a n a t i o n a l ' power base c a F a b l o of e f f e c t i v e l y resist-
i n g a n e v e n t u a l C h i n e s e m i l i t a r y a t t a c k . I n t h e c o n t e x t of
t h e immediate s i t u a t i o n on t h e borde r , whe r e C h i n e s e t r o o p s
h a d o o c u p i e d t h e A k s a i P l a i n i n Ladalrh, t h i s was n o t a n a n s w e r
a t a l l b u t r a t h e r an i m p l i c i t a f f i r m a t i o n t h a t I n d i a d i d n o t
h a v e t h e m i l i t a r y c a p a b i l i t y t o d i s l o d g e t h e Chinese.
The b o r d e r d i s p u t e i t s e l l i n t h i s pe r iod c e n t e r e d l a r g e l y
on C h i n e s e o c c u p a t i o n of t h e P A s a i P l a i n which, combined w i t h
m i n o r armed c l a she s a d d e d t h o i m p o r t a n t d i m e n s i o n o f &ap. a f -
f r o n t e d n a t i o n a l p r e s t i g e on b o t h s i d e s . B e h i n d t h e i n t s r m i n -
abl e e x c h a n g e of l e t t e r s and n o t e s c a r r y i n g t e r r i t o r i a l c l a ims
and c o u n t e r c l a i m s l i e s the viow of t h e I n d i a n l e a d e r s t h a t
P e i p i n g s u r r e p t i t i o u s l y had d e p r i v e d I n d i a of a l a r g e c o r n e r
of L a d a k h and e v e r since h a 4 been t r y i n g t o compe l New D e l h i
t o a c i u i e s c e i n t h i s e n c r o a c h m e n t . Not t o a c q u i e s c e ha s Is;urcome
p r i m a r i l y a matter of n a t i o n a l p r e s t i g e , as t h e Aksai P l a i n
is n o t r e a l l y of s t r a t e g i c v a l u e - - o r was n o t h e l d p u b l i c l y t o
be of s t r a t e g & a - v a l u e - - t o I n d i a . For ~1 w h i l e i n f a l l 1 9 5 9
N e h r u seemed t o be p r e p a r i n g t h e I n d i a n p u b l i c f o r c e s s i o n
of t h e Aksai P l a i n t o t h e C h i n e s e i n e x c h a n g e f o r I n d i a n owner-
s h i p of t h e NEFA, b u t t h i s vias o p p o s e d by some l e a d e r s in
t h e C o n g r e s s P a r t y .

"with his view that the Chinese Conununist leaders were amenable to gentlemanly persuasion" Alas this was NOT the case.

Next time you selectively quote the CIA POLO documents out of context, make sure to quote the reasons mentioned in the very first section of the report!

 

[CardSharp]

How conveniently you stick to that only one section.
Heres how the whole mess starts:

"with his view that the Chinese Conununist leaders were amenable to gentlemanly persuasion" Alas this was NOT the case.

Next time you quote the CIA POLO documents, do quote the reasons mentioned in the very first section of the report!

Read the report in entirety please.

"with his view that the Chinese Conununist leaders were amenable to gentlemanly persuasion" Alas this was NOT the case.

Yep. The whole report focuses on what a fool Nehru was and how this stupidity and naivety was pivotal in his blind stumble into the war.

India is still full of tea room strategists IMO. The panipat syndrome is alive and well.

 

[gubbi]

Read the report in entirety please.

I did. You cannot start anywhere in the middle just to suit your own pov. Start from Section 1. I had read Joe Shearer's post on this war (you posted that a couple of times, IIRC) and did believe in what he wrote. But this opening section of the CIA report changes that a bit.

Shows how naive Nehru was.

On one hand you call Nehru a war monger, on the other you call him 'naive'. So which one is it? Make up your mind.

 

[toxic_pus]

Nehru wasn't a warmonger by any stretch of imagination. Although many Chinese would find it hard to believe, he was essentially a pacifist. However he was naive and combined with an ego the size of Mt Everest, he was a recipe for diplomatic disaster. Add to that the rank amateur opposition, which left Nehru with little or no room to maneuver. Mistakes were made by both sides, but a direct military confrontation with China could have been avoided if a little flexibility could have been shown by India.

Truth sucks, but lets not pass off spades as hearts.

Off-topic rant: I actually find a parallel between Nehru's handling of China regarding Aksai Chin and Jinnah's handling of India regarding Kashmir.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I did. You cannot start anywhere in the middle just to suit your own pov. Start from Section 1. I had read Joe Shearer's post on this war (you posted that a couple of times, IIRC) and did believe in what he wrote. But this opening section of the CIA report changes that a bit.


On one hand you call Nehru a war monger, on the other you call him 'naive'. So which one is it? Make up your mind.

I keep getting quoted, perhaps because of my essential position that it is necessary for every Indian to understand the intricate details of 62 with a view to ensuring that it never happens again. In expressing this position, I have not failed to highlight the debacle in the western sector of Arunachal Pradesh. However, there were two other sectors where there were clashes, and we have not discussed those in detail. It is tempting to return to the original thread and to write in detail about the events in those two sectors, which could possibly correct an impression that reporting the failure of the Indian Army in a biased and hostile manner was the point of my posts. The point of my posts was emphatically not this; it was to represent in clinical detail what happened, although what happened was not a happy recollection for the Indian Army. An extension of this reporting to the other two sectors involved would display the Indian Army in a much better light. As it happens, it is not inappropriate to represent these events in clinical detail as well; for the same reason as the western Arunachal events were represented, to learn from them, and to reproduce what good things were done, as well as to correct the bad things that were done.

Perhaps it is time to return to that thread and to round out the record.

However, in this case, what is in discussion is not the details, tactical or strategic, of the hostilities that ensued, but an enquiry into motivation. We never entered into motivation beyond some mention of what Nehru did, to the extent that it had a bearing on events on the ground.

If asked my own evaluation of Nehru's role in the matter, I believe that I would more or less endorse Toxic Pus' posts on the matter, specifically his post 84.

This is by way of a personal clarification, and to ensure that the clinical analysis undertaken is not taken - by Indians only - as representing any fundamental questioning of the validity of the Indian democratic experience, or as anything beyond constructive criticism.

It is unfortunate that the events of 62 occurred. That needs to be said. That need not be said for eternity, or repeated perpetually every year, every anniversary. It is enough that it is understood by Indians and by Chinese alike.

It is not necessary for Chinese commentators to dwell on this any longer, as public sentiment in India has never remained hostile to China except in times of provocations and strains and stresses on various issues, mainly to do with the boisterous interest that China takes in finding itself unerringly on the opposite side to Indian interests, seemingly with effortless ease. That is not a token of a peaceful outlook or intention. Regrettably, all the injured justification that China could summon to her side is being gradually eroded by the extent to which this card has been played over and over again, beyond any possible tenability any more.

Nehru wasn't a warmonger by any stretch of imagination. Although many Chinese would find it hard to believe, he was essentially a pacifist. However he was naive and combined with an ego the size of Mt Everest, he was a recipe for diplomatic disaster. Add to that the rank amateur opposition, which left Nehru with little or no room to maneuver. Mistakes were made by both sides, but a direct military confrontation with China could have been avoided if a little flexibility could have been shown by India.

Truth sucks, but lets not pass off spades as hearts.

Off-topic rant: I actually find a parallel between Nehru's handling of China regarding Aksai Chin and Jinnah's handling of India regarding Kashmir.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

@ joe i think india giving home to dalilama was the provocation for china to claim the territory once they were willing to compromise..we would like to have a good article from your side on the validity of chinese claim on tibet, indo tibet indo china boundary dispute, and each ones position on time to time.

 

[CardSharp]

Nehru wasn't a warmonger by any stretch of imagination. Although many Chinese would find it hard to believe, he was essentially a pacifist. However he was naive and combined with an ego the size of Mt Everest, he was a recipe for diplomatic disaster. Add to that the rank amateur opposition, which left Nehru with little or no room to maneuver. Mistakes were made by both sides, but a direct military confrontation with China could have been avoided if a little flexibility could have been shown by India.

Truth sucks, but lets not pass off spades as hearts.

Off-topic rant: I actually find a parallel between Nehru's handling of China regarding Aksai Chin and Jinnah's handling of India regarding Kashmir.

Thanks for the clear headed explanation (and one I agree with), but please notice I never called Nehru a warmonger that was just a accusation that was thrown around. I accuse him of being responsible for pushing himself into a corner and the the nation to war in addition to accusing him of being naive. It was my opposite number that could not understand.

Yes surely then you'd have read the part where the polo report placed the blame for starting the war on Nehru? or is he not Indian?

So what we have here is a naive fool afraid to"look soft" in front of his friends and the nation, thus choosing to go to war and spill blood unnecessarily.

Yep. The whole report focuses on what a fool Nehru was and how this stupidity and naivety was pivotal in his blind stumble into the war.

 

[CardSharp]

It is not necessary for Chinese commentators to dwell on this any longer, as public sentiment in India has never remained hostile to China except in times of provocations and strains and stresses on various issues, mainly to do with the boisterous interest that China takes in finding itself unerringly on the opposite side to Indian interests, seemingly with effortless ease. That is not a token of a peaceful outlook or intention. Regrettably, all the injured justification that China could summon to her side is being gradually eroded by the extent to which this card has been played over and over again, beyond any possible tenability any more.

I understand but it was the sheer incorrectness of this post that made me angry .

IA failed in '62 is a well known fact. The fact that the Chinese withdrew as soon as the Cuban Missile crises de-escalated is also a known fact (another country which used an international event to mask its territorial ambitions was Georgia in 8/8/08!!). IA was literally caught with its pants down but the Chinese knew they could not sustain and hold their advances given IA's preparations to get back and international attention diverting from Cuban crises onto the conflict. So yes, territorial ambitions were denied to the then enemy.

and which is why I quoted the Polo report, here.

The border dispute had a momentum of its own. The
Chinese attack would almost c e r t a i n l y have been made even
if there had been no Cuban crisis and e v e n if t h e r e had been
no Sino - Soviet d i s p u t e . Whether t h e C h i n e s e w o u l d have
a t t a c k e d precisely when t h e y d i d if t h e r e had been no Cuban
m i s s i l e c r i s i s is c w c t u r a l , but the Soviet charge that
the Chinese attacked because of the opportunity provided
them at that time is overstated

This kind of self-delusion for the sake of one's pride, is frankly revolting. The study of history should be done as dispassionately and as coldly in the light of day as possible. ie I have no compunctions about admitting things like wars like sino-vietnamese war were a giant failure for the PLA. I don't need to dress it in a frock and call it Shirley.

 

[CardSharp]

@ joe i think india giving home to dalilama was the provocation for china to claim the territory once they were willing to compromise..we would like to have a good article from your side on the validity of chinese claim on tibet, indo tibet indo china boundary dispute, and each ones position on time to time.

The historical claim aspect of the border war is not my strong suit, but I can tell you that Tibet and the DL had actually surprisingly little to do with how negotiations broke down.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I understand but it was the sheer incorrectness of this post that made me angry .



and which is why I quoted the Polo report, here.



This kind of self-delusion for the sake of one's pride, is frankly revolting. The study of history should be done as dispassionately and as coldly in the light of day as possible. ie I have no compunctions about admitting things like wars like sino-vietnamese war were a giant failure for the PLA. I don't need to dress it in a frock and call it Shirley.

I know, I know; it's just that this is getting into the sphere of diminishing returns as far as dispassionate observers are concerned. I admit that for fanatic and unreasonable defenders of the Indian position, who will not listen to anything, your reaction remains appropriate.

Finally, you have to decide whether you wish to address the Bombensturms (whatever he calls himself now), Ganimi Kawas, Agnostic Indians, Toxic Pus', Gubbis (we all have our off-days!), Capt.Popeyes and Joe Shearers and the dozens more like them who post here, or the Internet warriors who need to tee you off just because you are Chinese.

Let me share the irony of the situation with you, in case it hasn't occurred to you yet (unlikely). Most of us reasonable Indians face the identical same dilemma when faced by two diametrically opposite responses from the other side, whether Pakistani or Chinese. It isn't an easy choice. I have come to a present stage (it was different before, it may be different later) where I ignore the trolls and attempt to communicate with the humans. However, there is a lot of pent-up anger as a result, and I take it out on Indian trolls; nobody Pakistani or Chinese can pick on me for that!

The historical claim aspect of the border war is not my strong suit, but I can tell you that Tibet and the DL had actually surprisingly little to do with how negotiations broke down.

In brief, I agree. The Dalai Lama's position was lost in 49/50 and this crystallised in 51; he had independence (speaking from memory, without reference to the sources) from 11 to 51. There may have been some sub-surface irritation on the PRC side, some sub-surface insecurity on the Indian side, but really no more than that, from all appearances.

@ joe i think india giving home to dalilama was the provocation for china to claim the territory once they were willing to compromise..we would like to have a good article from your side on the validity of chinese claim on tibet, indo tibet indo china boundary dispute, and each ones position on time to time.

Please see my response above. I don't think this was an insuperable obstacle, nor that it had a huge influence on the course of events.

Regarding the detailed analysis, I could attempt that (it is an enormously complicated subject) after this week (there are some critical meetings and discussions this week, on which some extremely grave family issues are dependent, and it will be difficult to concentrate on the essential homework while the other legal stuff is going on).

If there is demand for it, it could be attempted, but I will then ask for two referees from the Chinese side, to avoid having to deal with a flying wedge of Chinese fanboys determined to spill blood. There is no need for external help for the Indian fanboys; those I shall look forward to , as a perfectly suitable food supplement at breakfast.