Nehru sought US assistance during 1962 Indo-China war Nehru sought

[Joe Shearer]

Nehru started downplaying the army, tried to reduce it's importance. That, was one of the reasons.

I don't know why I mentioned Rajiv, sounds silly now. I keep visualizing things as interconnected graphs..

Hmm.

Yes, General Cariappa's disastrous remarks, coming as they did after Ayub's takeover, did cause a certain amount of anxiety, and the result was to cast suspicion on the Army. That was, however, a remote reason for the failure in 1962. Far more to the point were

1. Bhola Mallik's disastrously wrong intelligence about Chinese intentions and about Chinese strength on the other side;
2. The inability to understand what the Chinese Foreign Minister sought to convey, partly due to a degree of deliberate obfuscation;
3. The humiliation and sidelining of the professional leadership of the Army;
4. The very sorry story of Bijji Kaul, and his forced elevation by Nehru and the sycophantic Krishna Menon over far more experienced soldiers;
5. The 'forward' policy in all its ramifications.

This is not necessarily stated in order of importance. Not necessarily.

 

[Hindustani78]

Hmm.

Yes, General Cariappa's disastrous remarks, coming as they did after Ayub's takeover, did cause a certain amount of anxiety, and the result was to cast suspicion on the Army. That was, however, a remote reason for the failure in 1962. Far more to the point were

1. Bhola Mallik's disastrously wrong intelligence about Chinese intentions and about Chinese strength on the other side;
2. The inability to understand what the Chinese Foreign Minister sought to convey, partly due to a degree of deliberate obfuscation;
3. The humiliation and sidelining of the professional leadership of the Army;
4. The very sorry story of Bijji Kaul, and his forced elevation by Nehru and the sycophantic Krishna Menon over far more experienced soldiers;
5. The 'forward' policy in all its ramifications.

This is not necessarily stated in order of importance. Not necessarily.

Indian military was deployed on Pakistan borders and even defended Nepal during 1962 war , As part of the Forward Policy, the Army HQ had decided to set up a post at the tri-junction of the Bhutan, India and Tibet border, but in August 1962, it was informed by the Eastern Command that although the McMahon Line broadly follows the watershed, the tri-junction was not located upon it, but 3-4 miles south of it. Chinese patrols had been coming south of the watershed till the tri-junction shown on the maps, so New Delhi decided to move its Dhola post 4 miles north to the tri-junction on the watershed.


The command centre was at the newly created HQ (headquarters) IV Corps (one corps consists of a minimum of three divisions + supporting forces + reserves) in Tezpur under Lieutenant General B M Kaul. The IV Corps had a force little less than four infantry brigades (most of them hastily collected and not in their complete form) deployed in the North-East Frontier Agency, ie just about one division looking after over 400km (30,000 square km in area) of frontier starting from Bhutan through Kameng, Subansiri, Siang and Lohit to Tirap division, which finally connects to the Burmese border and Nagaland in the absolute northeastern corner of our country.

A little more than one brigade force guarded our border against the Chinese in Ladakh, where our forces were scattered even more, and practically all the posts were in isolation of that inhospitable terrain. Thus, only 24,000 troops out of a total of the 4,00,000-strong Indian army of those days fought the Chinese in 1962. That amounts to less than 1/16th of our army's strength at that time.

 

[Dungeness]

Unlike the trolls and fanboys here I read history as it happened. I don't sugarcoat history or try to tweak it to suit my ideology.

This gentleman here Mr. Shearer has been posting his claims on the 1962 war which unfortunately is far from accurate. Ditto, the Chinese suffered a setback in their adventures in Vietnam. And that is putting it politely. The Chinese underestimated the iron resolve of the Vietnamese.

.

Any histories were presented in different flavors, and one can only learn history through others' lens if he did not take part in that particular piece of history. Like your flavor of Vietnam-China conflict, apparently you decided to listen to Vietnamese side of story because you subconsciously preferred this flavor. Applying the same logic, you could also claim that India "hammered" the PLA soundly, then celebrate your victory against China's aggression, because it is the matter of fact that PLA actually declared an unilateral ceasefire and withdrew from the ground they gained back to LOC.

I do admit that PLA underestimated the strength of Vietnamese resistance, and suffered a heavier causality than expected in the early phase of the conflict.

 

[Dungeness]

The NE is a peculiar entity in rest of mainland India.

If you read into the legends of mythology then the NE states particularly Pragjyotishpur (Assam) and Manipur had mentions in texts like Mahabharat. In real history, the Chinese traveller Hieun-Tsang made a stopover in Assam as Harshvardhan and the then Kamrupa king were close allies. But in the middle ages the link was lost.

While he rest of India was under the rule of Islamicinvaders, he NE region remained free. Turkish sultans tried to annex Assam but failed. Later the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb tried to do the same and his army too met the same fate. The reason I am telling you all this is veryrelevan. While the rest of Indian states faced the same shared history ie. occupation by Islamic armies and Islamic rule the NE region maintained their own autonomy.

Coming to your "nation-state", India as a modern country did not exist before 1947. This is a very touchy subject for many Indians but the truth should be told as the truth. In 1947 when the British left they created a Muslim majority and a Hindu majority state, but they played a trick wherein they mentioned that the princely states could keep heir kingdoms and remain independent. This last clause would have far-reaching consequences.

India strong-armed the independent kingdoms to join the Indian federation. The state of Hyderabad was annexed by force after Operation Polo. The Rajputana kingdoms in Rajasthan too faced the same fate and later the princely kingdoms of NE.

NE like I said is peculiar because the longest they were associated with rest of India was during British Raj. The British occupied NE following the Treaty of Yandaboo in 1826 where the British pushed back the marauding burmese invaders from he state of Assam and instead imposed British rule. The NE states of Assam, Manipur and Nagaland put up resistance but they were no mach for a global superpower. The rebellion was crushed. The Ahom dynasty of Assam ended in 1826 but the Manipur and Tripura princely states remained, on paper, where they had to follow British orders.

After 1947, these princely states of Manipur and Tripura wanted to remain independent but were arm-twisted by a resurgent Indian federation. Assam nearly became east Pakistan but the transfer was stopped at the last minute. The present insurgency crisis is socio-political. There is lack of development and government negligence in the region which prompted frustrated local youth to rebel. You can argue that it is a case study of the lapses in central administration. Interestingly Sikkim is now clubbed as a NE state - though geography states otherwise. Sikkim was a "foreign country" till 1975 where a referendum merged the former princely state with India.

Your last statement is an exaggeration. The people in the region there are facing issues but to claim they would not care if they are under Chinese occupation is claiming too much. But since you mentioned culture and ethnicity it might interest you that the Ahoms claim to have migrated from China in 13th century AD. That is the only Chinese link to NE. The rest of the population is mongoloid but calling them "from China" is simply being ..... you know.

Thanks for the long writing, it is always beneficial for one to have an open mind and to see the same history from a different angle. By the way, it seems you are not as extreme as you appeared to be.

Here is a few reflections from reading your post:

1. It is noble that you can admit the well know fact, at least to Chinese members here, that India as a modern country did not exist before the partition of 1947. It is rare an Indian internet warrior can openly face this touch issue.

2. India resorted to force ("strong-armed" or "annexed by force" in your words) to deprive the independence of various Kingdoms and princely states which might or might not want to be part of Indian Union. It shows India has a territory ambition since its independence, which explains the motivation of the "Forward Policy" later time against China except this time India met a bigger guy than it could strong-arm. It is reasonable to assume that India's territory ambition has never ceased, considering all the territory disputes India has with all its neighbors.

3. After the independence, Indians walked into many parts of NE as a new colonial master, as Indians considered themselves as the victors of the war with Brits, and should automatically assume later's colonies as their trophy. Your legal stand of owning a large part of NE is not because the historical/cultural/ethnically bond, but merely the British colonial legacy, therefore, my last statement (For them, under either Indian or Chinese rule could mean the same thing) remain true. Isn't it true until this day, you guys in mainland India still call them "chinki"? By the way, I did not claim those in NE from China in my post.

Thanks for sharing thoughts.

 

[Karkaza]

1. It is noble that you can admit the well know fact, at least to Chinese members here, that India as a modern country did not exist before the partition of 1947. It is rare an Indian internet warrior can openly face this touch issue.

It only proves he is a muslim.

2. India resorted to force ("strong-armed" or "annexed by force" in your words) to deprive the independence of various Kingdoms and princely states which might or might not want to be part of Indian Union. It shows India has a territory ambition since its independence, which explains the motivation of the "Forward Policy" later time against China except this time India met a bigger guy than it could strong-arm. It is reasonable to assume that India's territory ambition has never ceased, considering all the territory disputes India has with all its neighbors.

You are free to assume anything. Isn't it fun ?

3. After the independence, Indians walked into many parts of NE as a new colonial master, as Indians considered themselves as the victors of the war with Brits, and should automatically assume later's colonies as their trophy. Your legal stand of owning a large part of NE is not because the historical/cultural/ethnically bond, but merely the British colonial legacy, therefore, my last statement (For them, under either Indian or Chinese rule could mean the same thing) remain true. Isn't it true until this day, you guys in mainland India still call them "chinki"? By the way, I did not claim those in NE from China in my post.

Thanks for sharing thoughts.

NE has same legal status as any other Indian. Actually they have more privileges. Is the same true for TIbet ?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Thanks for the long writing, it is always beneficial for one to have an open mind and to see the same history from a different angle. By the way, it seems you are not as extreme as you appeared to be.

Here is a few reflections from reading your post:

1. It is noble that you can admit the well know fact, at least to Chinese members here, that India as a modern country did not exist before the partition of 1947. It is rare an Indian internet warrior can openly face this touch issue.

2. India resorted to force ("strong-armed" or "annexed by force" in your words) to deprive the independence of various Kingdoms and princely states which might or might not want to be part of Indian Union. It shows India has a territory ambition since its independence, which explains the motivation of the "Forward Policy" later time against China except this time India met a bigger guy than it could strong-arm. It is reasonable to assume that India's territory ambition has never ceased, considering all the territory disputes India has with all its neighbors.

3. After the independence, Indians walked into many parts of NE as a new colonial master, as Indians considered themselves as the victors of the war with Brits, and should automatically assume later's colonies as their trophy. Your legal stand of owning a large part of NE is not because the historical/cultural/ethnically bond, but merely the British colonial legacy, therefore, my last statement (For them, under either Indian or Chinese rule could mean the same thing) remain true. Isn't it true until this day, you guys in mainland India still call them "chinki"? By the way, I did not claim those in NE from China in my post.

Thanks for sharing thoughts.

There is some correction needed here, based on the legislation and the constitutional law which covered these aspects, as well as the declared intent of the British and of the Indian government in succession. Perhaps later today, or tomorrow?

 

[Indian Patriot]

In1957,the USSR successfully tested its first ICBM,and by the early 1960 it had available a variety of ballistic missiles

By 1964, the first battalions were deployed to their operating area in West Germany. The Pershing I quickly replaced all PGM-11 Redstone MRBMs.

February of 1959, the United States deploys nuclear weapons to Turkey.

USSR placed, or allegedly deployed, short-range ballistic missiles in Cuba which made USA go ape-sh1t. Short range ballistic missiles are lethal because they have a very short engagement time and thus extremely difficult to intercept. Before the US could even detect a launch and retaliate the Russian missile would have hit USA.

USA ordered a blocade and the world was inches away from a nuclear world war. USA had its allies and USSR needed hers. No way on earth would Russia side with India against China in such a critical juncture. This is REALPOLITIK.

In reality Indian military was guarding the independence of these nations against Chinese occupation.

I am sorry but I don't sugarcoat history, I study it as it happened. The Chinese guy became upset because I said the truth that Vietnam gave China a bloody nose. Now it may upset you to learn that your claims are baseless. Indian army was doing no guarding of NE princely states. Manipur and Tripura had to sign heir merger with India under duress just like Hyderabad and Rajputana kingdoms. Some allege the same holds true even for Sikkim which joined India in 1975.

 

[Dungeness]

There is some correction needed here, based on the legislation and the constitutional law which covered these aspects, as well as the declared intent of the British and of the Indian government in succession. Perhaps later today, or tomorrow?

Thanks, but take your time. It is a long learning process.

 

[Indian Patriot]

Any histories were presented in different flavors, and one can only learn history through others' lens if he did not take part in that particular piece of history. Like your flavor of Vietnam-China conflict, apparently you decided to listen to Vietnamese side of story because you subconsciously preferred this flavor

I don't.

The Chinese decided to "teach a lesson" to Vietnam. I agree with your conjecture that China was not interested in the destruction or occupation of the country. But things went south for China pretty soon. The Vietnamese did not flinch in the face of casualties and bravely stood their ground, something not seen by the Chinese in their 1962 adventure. In many fronts the Chinese failed to break through Vietnamese defences and in some cases they were even pushed back.

Vietnamese did not hoist their flag in Beijing. But hey did not get intimidated by the Chinese and did not roll over.

Korean war is claimed as a victory by both sides. It depends on how you read it. For me the Korean war was won by Chinese. I am not saying this to appease you but putting in facts. The north koreans hammered the south and nearly pushed them to the ocean. The Americans+allies joined and pushed the communists to chinese border, china joined in and pushed the americans+allies to 38th parallel. Both sides even today claim victory, but it is for a neutral observer to come to their independent conclusion.

Applying the same logic, you could also claim that India "hammered" the PLA soundly, then celebrate your victory against China's aggression, because it is the matter of fact that PLA actually declared an unilateral ceasefire and withdrew from the ground they gained back to LOC.

I wish what you are saying is true but it is not. In 1962 the Indians got a hammering, it fact even today the center is scared of China. This is evident from the fact that everybody downplayed the incursion into Ladakh by PLA soldiers.

PLA declared a ceasefire because Uncle Sam extended political support to India. China is not a mental case to easily hand back occupied territory. If they can occupy Tibet then they can occupy NEFA as well. Bear in mind hat in 1962 Arunachal (which you Chinese claim as Lower Tibet) did not exist, it was North East Frontier Agency. These areas were not even full-fledged states of Indian union. So why did the Chinese make such a tactical blunder from Chinese point of view?

Also bear in mind that the Chinese supply routes were stretched but never under threat. No Indian land or aerial operations were carried out against Chinese supply lines. In fact the Indian army was given marching orders to make a strategic retreat, here was no preparations for a counter-attack. Instead the army was given orders to consolidate, reorganise and defend bengal against a possible Chinese invasion.

China had the upper hand in every field. So what made the Chinese so kind-hearted to declare a unilateral ceasefire if not US support?

Thanks for the long writing, it is always beneficial for one to have an open mind and to see the same history from a different angle. By the way, it seems you are not as extreme as you appeared to be.

Most of the Indians in PDF, not all though, are immature kids with internet access who judge a person by their religious background instead of what they share.

It is noble that you can admit the well know fact, at least to Chinese members here, that India as a modern country did not exist before the partition of 1947. It is rare an Indian internet warrior can openly face this touch issue.

LOL!! I am no internet warrior my friend. I just speak the facts as they are. I won't hesitate to speak facts even if they make you feel uncomfortable. Some trolls and fanboys find facts uncomfortable and then they start acting funny.

India under British rule included Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar which were under direct British rule. Plus there were hundreds of very small but independent princely kingdoms who paid tribute to British but maintained their autonomy. The modern day democratic Indian republic came into existence after 1947.

India resorted to force ("strong-armed" or "annexed by force" in your words) to deprive the independence of various Kingdoms and princely states which might or might not want to be part of Indian Union.

A bitter fact but a true fact. Operation Polo was conducted to annex Hyderabad. It was not always military force though, by "strong-arm tactics" I mean various pressure methods were employed. The Rajputana states were not "invaded" like Hyderabad, but the rajput maharajas also signed the accession accord under duress.

It shows India has a territory ambition since its independence, which explains the motivation of the "Forward Policy" later time against China except this time India met a bigger guy than it could strong-arm

I cannot agree or disagree with the claims of Forward Policy. I need to learn more about the allegations by the Chinese that India was the aggressor.

It is reasonable to assume that India's territory ambition has never ceased, considering all the territory disputes India has with all its neighbors.

This is a grey area. The Chinese went mad when Sikkim joined India. They alleged that the referendum was a big conspiracy and votes were rigged. But the border disputes with Pakistan and Bangladesh are legacy of colonial rule. Like the McMohan line the borders with both these countries are genuinely ambiguous.

I mentioned that princely kingdoms were given the choice to join India or Pakistan or chose to remain independent. Kashmir chose independence but they were invaded by Pakistani pathan tribes. In panic the Maharaja of Kashmir approached India for help. India put forward the condition that hey will help Kashmir only if Kashmir becomes part of India. The dispute continues even today.

After the independence, Indians walked into many parts of NE as a new colonial master, as Indians considered themselves as the victors of the war with Brits, and should automatically assume later's colonies as their trophy. Your legal stand of owning a large part of NE is not because the historical/cultural/ethnically bond, but merely the British colonial legacy, therefore, my last statement (For them, under either Indian or Chinese rule could mean the same thing) remain true. Isn't it true until this day, you guys in mainland India still call them "chinki"? By the way, I did not claim those in NE from China in my post.

Your comments are not entirely accurate.

The NE did have historical links with India, but just not as extensive as other Indian states. Pragjyotishpur or modern day Assam had a close alliance with the Delhi king Harshvardhan. Another example is when Guru Nanak, he founder of Sikh faith made a pilgrim to Assam. There are many other such small examples.But I agree that other Indian states were consolidated because of shared Islamic rule and subsequent Islamic culture.

Indians considered themselves the natural rulers of former British colonies just like the Pakistanis consider themselves the natural rulers of former British colonies. Even today many pashtuns in NWFP do not recognise the international border between the two countries. Baluchistan is another grey area.

Yes, there is a deep-rooted racism against NE people in mainland India. Many Indians have a racist attitude and call the NE people "chinki". But I doubt that is enough proof to claim NE would be happy under Chinese.

I did not mean you when I said some people claim NE people originated in China. Let's not name him here, he is an immature kid and will go into a long, tireless rant. But having said that, the Ahoms who founded the Ahom kingdom in Assam do claim their ancestry from China and it is a valid claim.

Because of the ambiguously drawn borders in 1947 many parts of India ended up in bangladesh and myanmar. Many Naga, Manipuri and other NE tribes are now distributed in myanmar and bangladesh because of colonial era borders.

 

[Hindustani78]

USSR placed, or allegedly deployed, short-range ballistic missiles in Cuba which made USA go ape-sh1t. Short range ballistic missiles are lethal because they have a very short engagement time and thus extremely difficult to intercept. Before the US could even detect a launch and retaliate the Russian missile would have hit USA.

USA ordered a blocade and the world was inches away from a nuclear world war. USA had its allies and USSR needed hers. No way on earth would Russia side with India against China in such a critical juncture. This is REALPOLITIK.

The R-7 missile became the first Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile. It was based on plans laid out in the governmental order from February 13, 1953 to develop a two-stage ballistic missile with a range of 7000-8000 km.


Deployed at Soviet missile sites near Alaska, the R-7 could have been used to strike any target within the continental U.S. All of Europe was also within range from missile bases in the Soviet Union.

The development of the R-7 began in 1953, with the first flight test taking place in 1959. The original design of the R-7 entered service in the Soviet Union in 1960 while the longer ranged variant was introduced in 1961.

In the early 1960s the United States deployed Thor IRBMs in the United Kingdom and Jupiter medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBM) in Italy and Turkey.

Operation Anadyr called for three regiments of R-12 missiles (32 missiles total); two regiments of the R-14 (16 missiles); seven Project 629 (NATO: Golf) submarines with three R-13 SLBMs each; and one IL-28 bomber with nuclear cruise missiles. In October 1962, the USSR deployed three R-12s with 24 missiles to Cuba, setting the Cuban Missile Crisis in motion. After the R-12 missiles were spotted by U.S. Corona satellites, a blockade of the island was put into place.

I am sorry but I don't sugarcoat history, I study it as it happened. The Chinese guy became upset because I said the truth that Vietnam gave China a bloody nose. Now it may upset you to learn that your claims are baseless. Indian army was doing no guarding of NE princely states. Manipur and Tripura had to sign heir merger with India under duress just like Hyderabad and Rajputana kingdoms. Some allege the same holds true even for Sikkim which joined India in 1975.

You are having a strange history of Cold war .

After the Tibetan uprising , Nepal was even facing problems because of communists and in 1960's Nepal even gone through many changes and Parliament was dissolved and Monarchy was restored .


A map showing the political reorganisation of India up to March 31, 1948, sourced from "Notes, Memorandum and Letters Exchanged between the Governments of India and China, White Paper", New Delhi, Government of India, July 1948.

 

[Indian Patriot]

You are having a strange history of Cold war .

I am telling history as it happened. If you chose to modify history according to your ideology then be my guest.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The R-7 missile became the first Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile. It was based on plans laid out in the governmental order from February 13, 1953 to develop a two-stage ballistic missile with a range of 7000-8000 km.


Deployed at Soviet missile sites near Alaska, the R-7 could have been used to strike any target within the continental U.S. All of Europe was also within range from missile bases in the Soviet Union.

The development of the R-7 began in 1953, with the first flight test taking place in 1959. The original design of the R-7 entered service in the Soviet Union in 1960 while the longer ranged variant was introduced in 1961.

In the early 1960s the United States deployed Thor IRBMs in the United Kingdom and Jupiter medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBM) in Italy and Turkey.

Operation Anadyr called for three regiments of R-12 missiles (32 missiles total); two regiments of the R-14 (16 missiles); seven Project 629 (NATO: Golf) submarines with three R-13 SLBMs each; and one IL-28 bomber with nuclear cruise missiles. In October 1962, the USSR deployed three R-12s with 24 missiles to Cuba, setting the Cuban Missile Crisis in motion. After the R-12 missiles were spotted by U.S. Corona satellites, a blockade of the island was put into place.




You are having a strange history of Cold war .

After the Tibetan uprising , Nepal was even facing problems because of communists and in 1960's Nepal even gone through many changes and Parliament was dissolved and Monarchy was restored .


A map showing the political reorganisation of India up to March 31, 1948, sourced from "Notes, Memorandum and Letters Exchanged between the Governments of India and China, White Paper", New Delhi, Government of India, July 1948.

This is a very difficult member who has joined lately, knows nothing about earlier discussions, has got 26 negative ratings in a short while, and insists on persisting with his Rottweiler tactics.

If you say anything contradictory, he will merely insist on his point of view and claim that that is correct history and everybody else is wrong.

Don't waste time.

 

[Hindustani78]

I am telling history as it happened. If you chose to modify history according to your ideology then be my guest.

Its fact that Indian troops were not deployed fully in 1962 war along the Arunachal Pradesh border but putted a stiff resistance .

Indian army was deployed along Pakistan border and even defended Nepal.

 

[Indian Patriot]

This is a very difficult member who has joined lately, knows nothing about earlier discussions, has got 26 negative ratings in a short while, and insists on persisting with his Rottweiler tactics.

I don't follow your bullsh1t theories so I am "difficult"? Coming from a moron like you I would take it as a compliment. As for the negative rantings, they are the gift of the Indian TTAs who were furious when I spoke the obvious truth - INSAS is junk, LCA is junk, Arjun is junk and DRDO is an irresponsible organisation with no sense of professionalism or accountability.

If you say anything contradictory, he will merely insist on his point of view and claim that that is correct history and everybody else is wrong.

You come with some strawberry fantasies about the 1962 war and you expect me to believe your bullsh1t? Know what kid? You should stick to pretending how aged and learned you are.

Its fact that Indian troops were not deployed fully in 1962 war along the Arunachal Pradesh border but putted a stiff resistance .

That's speculation. Our Chinese friend here @Dungeness would attest to the fact that the Chinese still mainain that 1962 was a defensive war on heir part in response to India's Forward Policy. If Forward Policy claims are true then the deployment of Indian troops was not a concern.

And I hate to burst your bubble but there was no "stiff resistance" by Indian army in 1962. There were sporadic defenses but on a whole India simply crumbled in face of Chinese onslaught. The general order given to soldiers was simple retreat. Not a single airforce fighter was deployed to attack PLA communication lines.

Arunachal was lost and the PLA had entered Tezpur. The then PM did not mount a counter-offensive instead in his broadcast he shed tears that the NE was lost to China. A country who puts up "stiff resistance" does not make statements like that. Read about he Vietnamese defense against China. A smaller country put up a better fight.

 

[Dungeness]

I don't follow your bullsh1t theories so I am "difficult"? Coming from a moron like you I would take it as a compliment. As for the negative rantings, they are the gift of the Indian TTAs who were furious when I spoke the obvious truth - INSAS is junk, LCA is junk, Arjun is junk and DRDO is an irresponsible organisation with no sense of professionalism or accountability.



You come with some strawberry fantasies about the 1962 war and you expect me to believe your bullsh1t? Know what kid? You should stick to pretending how aged and learned you are.



That's speculation. Our Chinese friend here @Dungeness would attest to the fact that the Chinese still mainain that 1962 was a defensive war on heir part in response to India's Forward Policy. If Forward Policy claims are true then the deployment of Indian troops was not a concern.

And I hate to burst your bubble but there was no "stiff resistance" by Indian army in 1962. There were sporadic defenses but on a whole India simply crumbled in face of Chinese onslaught. The general order given to soldiers was simple retreat. Not a single airforce fighter was deployed to attack PLA communication lines.

Arunachal was lost and the PLA had entered Tezpur. The then PM did not mount a counter-offensive instead in his broadcast he shed tears that the NE was lost to China. A country who puts up "stiff resistance" does not make statements like that. Read about he Vietnamese defense against China. A smaller country put up a better fight.

Thanks for tagging me. Kinda late today, I will read through news posts and reply tomorrow. Really enjoy this kind of informative discussion with you guys, and I learnt a lot. @Joe Shearer