These comments are not very different from Pakistani comments on the loss of Bangladesh in 1971, everyone seems to blame the trecherous bengalis etc, etc. Think about it.
Sino-Indo Border Conflict
- Thread starter master_fx
- Start date
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Here hrz something again
China's Tawang rider to boundary talks
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ider_to_boundary_talks/articleshow/386948.cms
China's Tawang rider to boundary talks
Saibal Dasgupta
RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates
BEIJING: Chinese experts have said that Indian should "give back" Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh to China as a pre-
condition for resolving the border row.
The views of Chinese experts expressed at a closed-door meeting on the border question in a state-run institutions seem to set the tone for the discussions by Chinese leaders during president Hu Jintao's visit to New Delhi from November 20.
New Delhi is opposed to the idea of handing over Tawang, both because it is part of India and also because such a handover would make India strategically vulnerable in the Himalayan region.
Over seven Chinese experts representing different think-tanks spoke at a closed-door conference on the border question organised by the Institute of Asia Pacific Studies, which is part of the giant Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Three Indian experts including Tan Chung, a former teacher at the Jawaharlal Nehru University and an Indian citizen, also attended the conference.
"The Chinese experts made it clear that the border problem could be solved if Indian handed over Tawang to China," B R Deepak, associate professor of Chinese at JNU, who spoke at the meeting, told TOI. "Chinese scholars also said that China would be magnanimous on the issue of Aksai Chin area if India agreed to give up Tawang," Deepak said.
The Chinese, who have been subtle in their approach to the issue, are now vocal and very clear about their standpoint on the border issue, he said.
A third Indian scholar who spoke at the meeting was Venkat Raman, who is doing research in Beijing as part of cultural exchange mechanism.
Attending the conference were heavyweight scholars, known to be providing advise to the Chinese government,
including Sun Shi Hai, deputy director of the Institute of Asia Pacific Studies, Zheng Ruxiang, senior research
fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, Ma Jia Le, research professor at the China Institute of Contemporary International Studies and Chen Rui Sheng, former Chinese ambassador to India.
Sun said that the political atmosphere has changed vastly from the time of the Indo-Chinese war, when China had adopted an ultra-Left ideology and had an entirely different worldview from it has today.
China's Tawang rider to boundary talks
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ider_to_boundary_talks/articleshow/386948.cms
China's Tawang rider to boundary talks
Saibal Dasgupta
RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates
BEIJING: Chinese experts have said that Indian should "give back" Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh to China as a pre-
condition for resolving the border row.
The views of Chinese experts expressed at a closed-door meeting on the border question in a state-run institutions seem to set the tone for the discussions by Chinese leaders during president Hu Jintao's visit to New Delhi from November 20.
New Delhi is opposed to the idea of handing over Tawang, both because it is part of India and also because such a handover would make India strategically vulnerable in the Himalayan region.
Over seven Chinese experts representing different think-tanks spoke at a closed-door conference on the border question organised by the Institute of Asia Pacific Studies, which is part of the giant Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Three Indian experts including Tan Chung, a former teacher at the Jawaharlal Nehru University and an Indian citizen, also attended the conference.
"The Chinese experts made it clear that the border problem could be solved if Indian handed over Tawang to China," B R Deepak, associate professor of Chinese at JNU, who spoke at the meeting, told TOI. "Chinese scholars also said that China would be magnanimous on the issue of Aksai Chin area if India agreed to give up Tawang," Deepak said.
The Chinese, who have been subtle in their approach to the issue, are now vocal and very clear about their standpoint on the border issue, he said.
A third Indian scholar who spoke at the meeting was Venkat Raman, who is doing research in Beijing as part of cultural exchange mechanism.
Attending the conference were heavyweight scholars, known to be providing advise to the Chinese government,
including Sun Shi Hai, deputy director of the Institute of Asia Pacific Studies, Zheng Ruxiang, senior research
fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, Ma Jia Le, research professor at the China Institute of Contemporary International Studies and Chen Rui Sheng, former Chinese ambassador to India.
Sun said that the political atmosphere has changed vastly from the time of the Indo-Chinese war, when China had adopted an ultra-Left ideology and had an entirely different worldview from it has today.
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
oh we admit that China was vastly superior in military terms at that time, and that is why we lost. And this difference of the capabilities was BECAUSE India at that time thought that we did not even NEED an army, courtesy Nehru. So the Chinese war, did indeed expose our flaws to us. And it is only because of that realisation, we have won every single war since.
The chinese army was indeed superior because Nehru wanted to spend NO money on the army. He didnt before then, the IA was ill equiped, ill prepared, and a host of other things. So we admit, but we learnt from our mistakes. The record lays testament to that.
The chinese army was indeed superior because Nehru wanted to spend NO money on the army. He didnt before then, the IA was ill equiped, ill prepared, and a host of other things. So we admit, but we learnt from our mistakes. The record lays testament to that.
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
oh yeh, im sure you wanted to hear, how the astounding incapable IA, in its prime was whooped by the Magnificent Chinese Army which as god knows can never be beaten in battle.
Every failure in war has reasons, this is the reason for our failure. Look up a few posts and you will find similar responses to the reasons of failure in the 65 war by other Indians.Oh and by no means is Nehru the ONLY scapegoat, he has alongside the then defence minister Menon.
Awesome
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,023
- Reaction score
- 5
Of course Bangalis working against us becomes one of the parties of the war. They were on the other side. Plus the defeat on the east is credited more to the numerical superiority and the lack of a supply line connection to them.
1962 was the result of over ambitious dream of Nehru aided by his defence minister and chief of the army.
The IA was made the scape goat in the whole affairs.IA was totally not ready for any operations against the Chinese.Nehru was over-confident that the Chinese would not retaliate against any incursions.
Despite the Chinese mounting numerically vast units against the indian posts on the indo-chinese border,Nehru and the Chief of the Army refused to believe that Chinese will retaliate.
IA was never ready for any escalation in the conflict and there was no larger units on standy in case things got out of hand.Similar to Pakistan's under-estimating of the Indian response in 65 and Kargil.
The chinese were numerically superior in the theatre.This helped them make sweeping gains.
The IA units were not even supplied adequately for such an operation.This war was an eye opener for the nation and specially Nehru,who on one instance was planning to disband the army due to the hangover of Ghandian effect.
Now onto the Chinese.I dont have the exact number,but I have read that the casulaties numbers were even on both side.Ofcourse it could have been a little larger on the Indian as they were facing a numerically superior force.
This indicate that the chinese were not overwhemlying in terms of tactics other than the numbers.
Now isnt it interesting why the Chinese gave back what they had gained?Why did the Chinese let the issue linger even today,when they they had ample opurtunity to finish it once in for all??
The gains made by the Chinese streched their logistics to the end.They had to carry out the operation from Tibet over the himalayan passes.Contuing the operation was not logistically feasible.Add to that IA was preparing for a major counter offensive.
Had the Chinese stayed on history would have been different.They would have been badly mauled. Their units over the theatre would have to face the complete force of IA and logistically a nightmare to provide supplies for the Chinese troops.
The chinese made a smart decision to return back and hence history says a different stories today.I would say even today the Chinese would find virtually impossible to launch a decisive offennsive on the eastern border,until they have an front open on the western side on India
The IA was made the scape goat in the whole affairs.IA was totally not ready for any operations against the Chinese.Nehru was over-confident that the Chinese would not retaliate against any incursions.
Despite the Chinese mounting numerically vast units against the indian posts on the indo-chinese border,Nehru and the Chief of the Army refused to believe that Chinese will retaliate.
IA was never ready for any escalation in the conflict and there was no larger units on standy in case things got out of hand.Similar to Pakistan's under-estimating of the Indian response in 65 and Kargil.
The chinese were numerically superior in the theatre.This helped them make sweeping gains.
The IA units were not even supplied adequately for such an operation.This war was an eye opener for the nation and specially Nehru,who on one instance was planning to disband the army due to the hangover of Ghandian effect.
Now onto the Chinese.I dont have the exact number,but I have read that the casulaties numbers were even on both side.Ofcourse it could have been a little larger on the Indian as they were facing a numerically superior force.
This indicate that the chinese were not overwhemlying in terms of tactics other than the numbers.
Now isnt it interesting why the Chinese gave back what they had gained?Why did the Chinese let the issue linger even today,when they they had ample opurtunity to finish it once in for all??
The gains made by the Chinese streched their logistics to the end.They had to carry out the operation from Tibet over the himalayan passes.Contuing the operation was not logistically feasible.Add to that IA was preparing for a major counter offensive.
Had the Chinese stayed on history would have been different.They would have been badly mauled. Their units over the theatre would have to face the complete force of IA and logistically a nightmare to provide supplies for the Chinese troops.
The chinese made a smart decision to return back and hence history says a different stories today.I would say even today the Chinese would find virtually impossible to launch a decisive offennsive on the eastern border,until they have an front open on the western side on India
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
Webby, if Pakistan did not under estimate the Indian response in Kargil, then it was a very very badly planned attack on PA's part. All it got was surprise, and that was crucial. They didnt get anything else, surprise did not yield any results.
And in the Chinese war, we got our *** whopped. Never again will such a thing happen for never again, shall we trust the Chinese till the border dispute is resolved, and that will take a very long time.
And in the Chinese war, we got our *** whopped. Never again will such a thing happen for never again, shall we trust the Chinese till the border dispute is resolved, and that will take a very long time.
How was it badly planned politically wise it wasn't good, but other than that you guyies couldn't do anything against the militants little people with AKs only way you guyies so called "won" was after we withdrew other than that you guyies couldn't win even with AF and heavy artillery.
How was it a bad planned attack?
Webby don't bother with them, they will always deny the reason they could do anything was cause we withdrew with the militants, just looking at the assests India had they couldnt do anything.
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
I have read Lt General Kohl's book the "Untold Story" even though it was in UK and very long time ago.
India never expected a war with China. Specially after the Chiu En Lai visit and 'Hindi Chini bahi bhai' slogans. India was ill prepared for any conflict on the Eastern border; most of its strike forces geared towards a conflict on the Western border instead. However it was rude awakening for Indian armed foreces. It winnowed out the doves and changed Indian stance into a hawkish mode.
I liked Krishna Menon, he was a politician of the old stock. For many years afterwards, whenever I lunched at the India Club Resturant near Bush House in Strand (The food was good and affordable on a student budget. Besides, it used to be the place where Faiz Ahmad Faiz used to hang out and one would always find an excuse to talk to him) I used to see the picture of Krishna Menon hanging on the wall and felt a pang a sorrow for the sad end of a good statesman.
India never expected a war with China. Specially after the Chiu En Lai visit and 'Hindi Chini bahi bhai' slogans. India was ill prepared for any conflict on the Eastern border; most of its strike forces geared towards a conflict on the Western border instead. However it was rude awakening for Indian armed foreces. It winnowed out the doves and changed Indian stance into a hawkish mode.
I liked Krishna Menon, he was a politician of the old stock. For many years afterwards, whenever I lunched at the India Club Resturant near Bush House in Strand (The food was good and affordable on a student budget. Besides, it used to be the place where Faiz Ahmad Faiz used to hang out and one would always find an excuse to talk to him) I used to see the picture of Krishna Menon hanging on the wall and felt a pang a sorrow for the sad end of a good statesman.
Adux
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 3,856
- Reaction score
- 0
Its so amazing how age, worldly experience and most importantly an education and ability to self-think does to people. Happy to know you though not personally but atleast through this forum.
Krishna Menon Was a Keralite,my place.... As you say an old stock, fiery speaker, anti-capitalist and a peacenik. Nehru and Menon messed up the 62 War. Communism has deep roots in Kerala, It gave the world's first democratically elected communist government, Menon though not a communist, was a staunch socialist, therefore had a bias towards China in my opinion.
Its interesting for me to Know a Pakistani who knows indepth of Indian Politics.
Krishna Menon Was a Keralite,my place.... As you say an old stock, fiery speaker, anti-capitalist and a peacenik. Nehru and Menon messed up the 62 War. Communism has deep roots in Kerala, It gave the world's first democratically elected communist government, Menon though not a communist, was a staunch socialist, therefore had a bias towards China in my opinion.
Its interesting for me to Know a Pakistani who knows indepth of Indian Politics.
Similar threads
