Talk:Longju

Clarification needed
ONE Current: China entrenched itself around Longju furthering its claim on the territory. Source: Bérénice Guyot-Réchard, 2017, pg 187 — ''[…] in the face of PLA’s entrenchment. [72] Chinese troops were digging mines and building airfields around Longju, underscoring their claim that the outpost lay in their territory. [73]'' (Attributed to Amrita Bazaar Patrika) Proposed: Remove until other sources are found to back this up. DTM (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't read the comment:This contradicts the earlier claim that the Chinese withdrew. The timeline needs sorting. But as above, removing it would be better. DTM (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. This is a high quality academic source. This should be retained. Rather, the idea that the Chinese "withdrew" seems quite dubious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

TWO Current: The Longju incident... Source: Vertzberger 1984, p. xvii–xviii. — […] August 1959, the Longju incident, (xvii) Proposed: Replace with The August 1959 incident at Longju same source/ add something like henceforth referred to a the Longju incident in previous paragraphs/ else find replacement... DTM (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the "incident" is not described. "Seizing" a post is not called an "incident". See here and here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

THREE Better sources as far as the location of Longju goes. DTM (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't umap give you the ability to measure distance? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it does! DTM (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The 1940 Survey of India map that I added shows the river crossing. That is exactly where you would expect Longju to be. In fact, there is still a bridge there right now, and a barracks on the right bank of the river . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it! That is a really interesting observation! I wonder why it is still at that location even after all these years!
 * PAHAR has some really nice maps on which Longju is marked — d.1959, d.1960, d.1962 and others. DTM (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, those were the days when the Indian government was democratic and cared to inform the public.
 * As to the Chinese barracks, it is obviously there to guard the river crossing. The crossing is now defunct with the new road on the other side but the barracks will remain until China has a need to cut budgets. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Timeline box
I have added a timeline box for clarity. If it isn't suitable please let me know. DTM (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is not the timeline, but the fact that you are covering opinions in preference to facts. A 200-300 strong force came and attacked the post at Longju, killed one or two, and physically pushed the rest of them beyond their perceived border. For good measure, they had already claimed two days earlier that Indian forces had entered Migyitun. (Why would they?) This is not a "border clash" and "deteriorating relations". It was a pre-planned attack. And it was also a na koi ghusa hai moment for Nehru. The Indian public was outraged, lost trust in Nehru, and forced him to publish every piece of correspondence he had had with China and would have in future. The road to war had begun. Those are the facts. And no white-washing will be acceptable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, the Thagla Ridge and Longju were the only two places in the McMahon Line that were wildly inaccurate (meaning they fell short of the ethnic frontier). And those were the only places where China attacked. Mere coincidence? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think "deteriorating relations" is just a euphemism for the two countries shouting at each other. It does not necessarily imply that the relations had actually been good earlier. No doubt, the Nehruvian India made a show of good relations going on. But what did China actually contribute for the "good relations"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

, the page numbers given for the Sandhu book don't match. I can't find anything related to Longju on page 142 for instance. Can you double check the page numbers? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I found this bit on page 152: I think it is clearly a typo. They meant to say August 1959. There is no evidence of Indian troops going back to Longju. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, so, I am deleting the mention of September. There is no evidence that Indians went back to Lonju in September. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Report of the Officials w.r.t. Longju
The report contains clarifications sought by the Chinese side. Among the Chinese questions some are related to Longju — 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18.... The answer India gave to: Q13—What was the distance between Longju and Migyitun?>>> A.- The distance between Longju and the alignment south of Migyitun was about two miles. Why is India using "miles"??? Doesn't India use km as standard? NH signposts show distances in KM. DTM (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Miles were British. Kilometres were French. But the decimal number system was Indian (even though the Indian measure systems were mostly non-decimal; remember the anna?). So India eventually saw the light. The US hasn't yet switched to kilometres.
 * On the distance between Migyitun and Longju, I can offer this diplomatic masterpiece:

Allen Whiting and the "traditional boundary"
In Allen White's article, I found the passage:

Toni Huber has said that there is no record of any armed Tibetan rebels operating in Tsari. So we can dispense with the first part. It is the second part that is interesting, especially the status quo idea. The White Paper II has a memorandum dated 1 September (the same day that the Indian government protested).

And then:

This is pointing out two things. The McMahon Line doesn't cover Longju. Tough luck, India! Secondly, after agreeing to maintain status quo in March, you guys set up a post at Longju. This isn't the status quo. So, even though we didn't kick them out, the Longju guys withdrew voluntarily, which is a good thing. So, let us open some Champagne. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * An extract in the Claude Arpi article cited in the lead says June 1959 is when India established the Longju post. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Luowa/Lowa village
The place where the new Chinese village was built is called Luowa (珞瓦) on OpenStreetMap. This is evidently named after the river Luo He (洛河), the Chinese name for Tsari Chu.

"Luo" is often written as "Lo", when Mandarin is translated into English. Hence, "Luowa" is "Lowa". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The Chinese also renamed Migyitun as Tsari/Zhari (Chinese: 扎日乡). Both of these names appear to be branding exercises. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Lowa's orientation with respect to the McMahon Line (as per LSIB) is here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Lowa literally means the people of Lo. Lo is currently being used as the name of the river ("Tsari Chu" during the British Raj times and Tsariwa for the Tibetans living there). Originally, Lo seems to have been a short form for Loyul (tribal land). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Strachey, the Tibetans generally do not give names to rivers. They call them by the name of the place they come from. So, it is possible that the name Tsari Chu is used from the origin of the river up to Migyitun, and Lo Chu from there to Gelensiniak. Lo here refers not only to Loyul but also to Lo Mikyimdun, the full name of Migyitun. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Roi
The village of Roi is called "Ruyu" by the Chinese. Its orientation with respect to the McMahon Line (as per LSIB) is here. It is possible that there was a river crossing there from the beginning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Bhargava is alone in stating that Roi was manned by a post of 50 Assam Rifles men. Neither Johri nor Sandhu et al. state anything like that. The claim is doubtful because the Assam Rifles post was set up at Maja, corroborated by numerous sources. So I am removing the claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Unresolved questions on the Longju incident
There are still a few issues that aren't clear: -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Nehru's statement also says "8 riflemen" managed to escape. Given that there were 11 riflemen, of whom one was killed and one injured, there was only one other left in custody? There is no information about what happened to the body of the one killed, the injured rifleman and the NCO. Is it clear that they "escaped", rather than let off?
 * 2) The page currently says the Longju men withdrew to Daporijo. But the base was at Limeking, along the way. So wer they given orders to retire to Daporijo?
 * 3) If they did go off to Daporijo, it must have been a different contingent that set up a post at Majha. But why Majha? The map-drawn McMahon Line clearly included Luowa/Lowa in India.

Withdrawn or not?
I am not confident any more that the Chinese actually withdrew from Longju. Please share what evidence there is for or against. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Patrolled or not?
The lead says that the Indian foces continued to patrol to Longju till the 1962 war. But there are various statements made by the Indian government in the White Papers that they did not go to Longju. There is an intriguing statement in the Indian official history:

Obviously "1962" is a typo because it was in the midst of the war. Did they mean 1961, or 1960? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Shiv Kunal Verma
So Verma writes:

I see this as a distortion of Nehru's statement. He never mentioned any "square kilometers". He didn't use terms such as "serious disputes".

In contrast Steven Hoffmann explains:

Srinath Raghavan is even more circumspect:

One is sensationalism. The other is careful analysis. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)