Talk:Sino-Indian War/Archive 5

Statements by outside observers
You want to make this an FA and it is within the scope of the military history project. I think it is very important to mention the reasons why a war happened and I usually tend to give there too much information with my own edits, but experience shows that most readers feel distracted by large sections 'why a war started' and simply want to read the action. I suggest that you try to work on a couple of article to highlight the field. Size really doesn't matter for a FA. Wandalstouring 17:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When I asked at a talk page a large discussion ensued in which the contributors declared that anything over 100kb was unacceptable. Traing 08:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ElC
This entry relies too heavily on the unscholarly, pop-culture work of Chang. I object to that. This is supposed to be a balanced, dispassionate encyclopedia. El_C 09:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sino-Indian War result.
the article/the wikipedia's page on this war is false, China didn't fully win the war. China took the control of Aksai Chin ( a part of Kashmir ), whereas India took the control of the eastern states, Arunachal prdaesh, Assam and their sister states


 * And as the articles cited show, China didn't "take control of the Aksai Chin" during the war. It had controlled territory up to that point before the war. During the course of the war, China advanced and expelled Indian troops from the area now part of Arunachal Pradesh, and after winning, withdrew back to its pre-war line of control.--Yuje 22:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Quoted above, but just to restate in case you missed it

"Even though pro-peace people were currently dominant in India's elite, the article said, many others wanted a test of strength with China to revenge India's defeat in 1962." 
 * India's defeat in 1962 led to an overhaul of Indian Army in terms of doctrine, training, organisation and equipment.
 * "Militarily the Chinese victory was complete, the Indian defeat absolute. " (Calvin)
 * "While India was humiliated and the Indian Army was overhauled after the defeat"
 * "India is still smarting from the humiliation of its defeat."
 * "In virtually every battled the Chinese forces either outmaneuvered or overpowered the unprepared Indians. In less than six weeks of bloody fighting, the Chinese completely drove Indian forces back behind Chinese claim lines." (Calvin)
 * "As Director of Military Operations from 1961 to 1963, [D . K . PALIT.] had been perfectly placed to observe top civilmilitary decision-makers during the buildup, execution, and aftermath of this ignominious Indian defeat
 * "Explaining India's reluctance to raise the P word with China, a retired Indian diplomat points out that the Sino-Indian war of 1962 – when China inflicted a humiliating defeat on India – has cast a long shadow over India's diplomacy with China."
 * ...and I got tired of posting links and quotes, so here's a couple hundred more search results of news articles stating much the same thing

Or, for another comparison, Pakistan still holds control over part of Kashmir. Was India defeated in three wars against Pakistan, then? --Yuje 23:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You AGAIN fail to understand my point and go on and on without even addressing. I never said that China was defeated, I just said that to say "Chinese victory" in the infobox and leave it there is not informative and quite subjective. I also say China "affirmed total control over Aksai Chin", that doesn't mean they took it over. Yuje I am so so so tired of repeating myself. Please, I request you to read what I say before replying to it. And if you want, you can go on about India losing its three wars to Pakistan. HONESTLY. I DON'T CARE. I just want neutrality on a page I've been trying to get to FA for months and months, you can go to Indo-Pakistani Wars and say "India sufferred humiliating defeat every time they entered the battlefield". Just go and do it and don't make snide remarks. Traing 06:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm simply repeating simply what every reliable source on the subject says. Western, Indian, Chinese, whatever, sources say the same thing. Again, if you want to argue that saying there was a victory is subjective, you'll have to take your agenda against all those sources, as well as every war-related article in this and every other encyclopedia. You deleted not only the Chinese victory part, you deleted that the Chinese military defeated the Indian one, you deleted that there was a Chinese-led ceasefire, you deleted that the Chinese withdrew to pre-war positions, and you altered the text to say that China held the Aksai Chin as a result of the war. You want to make the article more "informative" by deleting information and adding your own subjective opinion.


 * However, I'm willing to compromise. If you believe "Chinese victory" to be subjective, we can present both views in the box; I'll cite all the sources which says the war ended in a Chinese victory, and you cite the sources that claim otherwise. Does that work? --Yuje 05:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I realised very rightly that I cannot take on what I believe to be wrong with an encyclopaedia's result-section of the infobox. My version now says "Chinese military victory". We'll just agree to compromise on that. Your version says "Chinese victory. After defeating the Indian army in all disputed regions". But that is essentially repetition of the same thing (something which you have a tendency to do), Chinese victory = Indian defeat. No need to unnecessarily add length in what should be a succint little section. I think that's over now. Traing 05:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy, probably i maybe wrong or i m wrong. but all u said was so racist, India could kick china's ass anytime it wants. We indians trusted u and u attacked india. How could we ever trust anyone of u again? Your country didnt win, it betrayed and occupied other lands. Atleast our country is not the one that betrays their own allies, we fight fairly, not the cheap way, andt that's the Indian Army. Anyways, good job with the article, yes there was neutrality on the page.


 * A victory or loss can't be determined by the OPINION of some "scholars". A military defeat is complete only if there is a formal Treaty of Surrender. The end result was a cease-fire. Unless someone has access to a surrender treaty, Chinese victory is just a myth. Jvalant 06:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jvalant has a point, I will refer this to the Military History Project for feedback. Traing 06:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, now you Indians are even trying to deny China won the Sino-Indian war? Sure, just keep living in delusion. The whole world knows Indians lost a war in 1962. Editing wikipedia doesn't change the fact.
 * Again, I'm willing to offer the compromise. If scholars, military historians, and politicians (remember that most of the Indian politicians and military leaders involved wrote books after the war, and they too mention defeat) are in disagreement, then the article can simply present both views. I'll cite all the sources and noted figures that mention Chinese victory, you cite all the sources which support your position.--Yuje 06:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no need to cite when both of our versions state Chinese victory now. But the thing with your compromise is that you have not stated what my position is. I don't even know what my position is. All I think is that to simply state Chinese victory in the infobox based on the fact that China advanced to its claim lines during the war is too subjective and not useful. You can't really cite sources for that position. Traing 06:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL. You are willing to compromise on history? By the way, both of you are on the front page of the Indian newspaper DNA... http://www.dnaindia.com . A victory means a total victory. As far as reality is concerned, both the countries did not even formally declare war. I agree that the Chinese were kicking butt, what with Nehru giving that famous "My heart goes out to the people of Assam" speech – however, without a country formally surrendering or being conquered, the question of a victory does not arise. And let's not forget that one of the main reasons the Chinese backed out was the end of the Cuban missile crisis which prompted the USA to intervene on India's behalf thanks to Kennedy. Jvalant 06:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Mr. Jvalant, thanks for letting us know that China will gain a total victory over India without US intervene.
 * Hooray, I'm newsworthy now! I actually did email back in response to his questions, but I guess my email must have gotten caught in his spam filter or something. --Yuje 07:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is really funny..."Traing is a sly fox"...I wonder who bothered to check through our pages and pages of arguments to report on it. Traing 02:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm Venkatesan Vembu, the author of the DNA article. Before I wrote out the article, I sent out questions to Yuje, but since Traing didn't link his mail ID to his user page, I posted a message on his user page asking him to contact me. Traing didn't respond (perhaps he didnt see my message: on second thoughts, I wish I had posted my message on this Talk page) After reading Yuje's post here, I checked my Spam box, and sure enough I found his response to my questions. (I don't understand why this happened: after all, Yuje wasn't sending out spam mail.)I'm sorry this happened: I wish I had been able to incorporate both your responses. It would have made the article a bit more rich in detail.


 * It doesn't matter now that the article is written. I did see your message but as I didn't know who you were and who you represented I didn't see it necessary to respond. I also had no idea why a journalist was asking me to email them. But in any case, I don't think I would have had much to add.
 * Basically, my role in this dispute is to protect what I believe is the most neutral way the article can be represented. I have stated at times to Yuje that we are of opposite points of view and thus it is natural that we disagree, but we must be forgetting our individual points of view and be collaborating for the good of the encylopaedia and the article itself. This article itself is very good and may soon be featured on the main page, I am just trying to maintain NPOV and recently we have struck compromises to do this. Traing 04:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Goa, India & China
Note: The text below does not actually bear relation to the article but is instead based on getting support for a Free Goa seperatist movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traing (talk • contribs)

The Indians are hypocrites. The regions disputed by India and China are unmistakeably not Indian, but are Tibetan, and while some Tibetans may dispute their relations with China, it remains a fact that ethnologically and culturally, Tibet was and remains part of the Chinese sphere. The Ladakhis and Tawangese are pure Tibetans, while the rest of the tribes of South Tibet aka Arunachal (hah!) are related to the Tibetans. Strictly speaking, even Sikkim (the Lepchas & Bhutia natives) and Bhutan are part of Greater Tibel, as is the Kingdom of Mustang in Nepal.

The Indians were instigated by the U.S. and U.S.S.R. (along with Nasser's Egypt, Tito's Yugoslavia and the United Nations Organization) to provoke the Chinese in the Sino-Soviet ideological dispute, when the Soviets used their differences to mock Mao for not using military force to seize HongKong & Macao a la the Soviet's seizure of the US-Japanese propped White Russian territories in Siberia; India was instigated to show up China by invading and occupying Goa. The Chinese punished India as it deserved for its smartass impertinence, showing who is top dog, and putting the upstarts in their place.

Goa does not belong to India, and India continues to illegally and criminally occupy it. India hypocritically claims that Pakistan's title to Azad Kashmir is non-existent and that those territories continue to "belong" to India, despite Pakistan ruling them since 1950 as a result of its military occupation, yet contradicts itself by pretending that its similarly illegal and criminal actions in the case of Goa are suddenly "moral and just". Basically, it works out to: I have a right to rob my neighbor, but how dare my neighbors rob me?

We patriotic Goans pray that the vile and illogical behemoth of India goes the same way as the Soviet and Titoist empires, and that Goa be liberated from subjugation at the hands of India. We will freely welcome Chinese assistance if it is proferred.

FreeGoan http://www.freegoa.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.243.34.15 (talk • contribs)


 * This person is using Wikpedia as a channel to gather support for a seperatist movement (albeit very minor). I don't know whether this is allowed, someone please inform me. Traing 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

How is this relevant on this article? 75.73.188.53 05:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All of this Goa-rape nonsense has no place in the article. Baka man  20:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Repetition in Yuje's version
There are numerous instances of repetition in Yuje's version which unnecessarily increase the size of the article. Yuje has above stated that he considers my version to be in no way better than his version and stated that the article is fine "the way it is" (which is against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia). Anyway, here are examples of clear-cut flaws in Yuje's verison: Surely this incessant repetition cannot be justified. Then why does Yuje not show any willingness for adjustment? Traing 06:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Chinese military victory. After defeating the Indian Army..." – both mean the same thing, unnecessary extension, not refined enough for infobox.
 * IndianSurveyMap1950 appears twice in the article.
 * IndianSurvey1954map appears twice in the article.
 * He says "[the treaty] had never been subject to treaty between the Indian and Chinese government" and then in the same sentence "and that the Indian government had insufficient ground for unilaterally defining a border and claiming the Aksai Chin in 1954 without having undergone ground surveys or consultation with neighboring China". If India had never consulted with China, obviously it had never been subject to treaty (and vice versa). If India had never consulted with China, obviously it had unilaterally defined the border. The details of Nehru wanting to declare the previously undemarcated boundaries of Aksai Chin in 1954 are also given above this paragraph. Again more repetition.
 * He adds "Singh claims that instead, India has always regarded the Himalayas as its traditional boundaries ." just in the next paragraph where it says that India extended its boundary north to the Himalayas because of its belief that the Himalayas were always the ancient boundaries of India.
 * He writes that "[weapons] were returned to India as a sign of goodwill instead of destroying them or abandoning them to the natives" just one sentence after the article says "the following months, vehicles and prisoners of war were returned by China unconditionally as a show of goodwill"

--Yuje 06:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The maps are relevant to both sections, because it showed both the varying changes in claims over the Aksai Chin, and as part of the pre-war claim changes. There's certainly precedent for allowing a graphic to be displayed twice: Genghis Khan, a featured article, does it.
 * 2) One is about its formal and legal status. His point was that the border had never been presently or historically negotiated between with any Chinese government and any Indian government, past or present. The second mention (after he made the point about its legal status) was his point that as a neighbor, India should not have simply claimed a section of undefined/disputed borders without consulting China.
 * 3) According to Singh's article, China's claim to the parts of the Himalayas beyond the foothills were traditional claims. It was simply pointing out that from Singh's mention, India's claims on the Himalayas are also based on traditional beliefs as well.
 * 4) The previous edit says that China returned the weapons only because of logistical concerns. However, in the actual cited article, she says that goodwill was the reason the weapons were returned instead of being destroyed or abandoned.
 * Genghis Khan isn't a featured article. Why insert it into the section on the formation of the Johnson Line when the maps relate to the 1950s. The captions are the same as well. No, the repetition of images is completely unnecessary. Also note that again you claim that India claims Bhutan as its own.
 * No, the essence of what you are trying to say isn't a problem. It is the wording, you have said that you oppose my summary which says "Zhou later argued that the Indian government could not place a claim over Aksai Chin without consultation and treaty with neighboring China to finalize the undemarcated borders. ", but you never mentioned exactly what is misses out on. It says that there has not been consultation, treaty and that the borders are demarcated. But your extension of the sentences and usage of repetition just shouldn't be there.
 * Yes but that paragraph was mainly about China's traditional claim while the earlier one stated India's traditional claim that the Himalayas were its boundaries. Why use repetition is the question.
 * The previous sentence said that it was a show of goodwill and she says that the reason they were returned as goodwill was because of the logistical concerns of keeping them. It's just repetition that's the problem, not the content.
 * Traing 06:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My claim is sourced, as I keep repeating. Are you just going to delete it based on heresay and your believe that Maxwell is biased?
 * If the essence of what I say isn't a problem, then please stop deleting it. Both points were used by Zhou and your "summary" doesn't do it justice, it simply states his claim without giving his reasons for why he objected.
 * The argument was that the Chinese claim should be invalid because it was a traditional one. However, as it was pointed out, India's claim to the Himalayas was also a traditional one. If you don't like my wording, then how about the wording used in the previous version of the article? "V.K. Singh argues that the basis of these boundaries, accepted by British India and Tibet, were that the historical boundaries of India were the Himalayas and the areas south of the Himalayas were traditionally Indian and associated with India. "
 * And all I added was that, despite the logistical concerns, they needn't have returned the weapons; other options they considered were to destroy them or hand them to the Tibetan natives.
 * --Yuje 07:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not the issue in this case (because I just realised that your repeated image doesn't mention Bhutan). The issue is on repetition.
 * OK, how about "Zhou later argued that as the boundary was undemarcated and never ratified by China, the Indian government could not unilaterally define Aksai Chin's borders".
 * I changed my version, see the history and see whether you like it.
 * OK, I incorporated that bit without mentioning the "show of goodwill" statement twice as that's repetition and makes it more unreadable. See whether you mind.
 * Traing 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent CIA documents
Apparently, some CIA documents on the Sino-Indian war were recently declassified. I haven't taken the time to read through the actual documents entirely yet, but some online newspapers have already reported on it.


 * CIA papers blame India for the 1962 war with China
 * ‘China feared military coup in India during ’60s'

The actual documents are online here. The documents were written during 1963–1965, so it offers quite a different perspective than more recent studies or books. I've only had time to skim through all of them. For example, in discussing Chinese motivations for war in section 3, it's attributed entirely to military and political objectives, and none to Tibet at all.

I'll continue with the current edits I'm planning, and then incorporate information from the CIA documents later, after having read them. --Yuje 19:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems good. But you can't ignore Garver, who bases his claims on Tibetan expansionism on both past and recent Chinese sources. Traing 02:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Another article on the CIA documents, just for some Indian perspective. Chinese deception, Nehru's naivete led to '62 war--58.110.247.161 09:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki
Could someone please add "pt:Guerra sino-indiana" do the article? Thanks. Gabbhh 20:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As a constant observer of Sino-Indian War, it's hard to weigh the factors associated with Sino-Indian War. It could be a well-planned Tibet expansionism or a vague military operation associated with various Cold War era myths and fears.Lustead 15:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Even CIA Blame India for the War
The recent declassified CIA report has also busted some of the myth perpetuated by some amateur/pseudo experts. In the CIA report, the Indian was portrayed as an inconsiderate, arrogant, deluded & bombastic war monger, while China was portrayed as a restrain power, hesistantly dragged into the war by India. After reading the CIA report, it's seem around 95% of the blame goes to India.

Look here -> http://www.foia.cia.gov/CPE/POLO/polo-09.pdf

Sawadeekrap 04:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK India seemed a bit too self-confident, but a CIA report has also to be checked for the political background. India was quite close with the enemy, the U.S.S.R., while China wasn't that close anymore. So don't quote them as facts but quote them as CIA says that ...Wandalstouring 19:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Even CIA" stuff doesn't sit right. This is an old report from 1964 when India was a Soviet ally. So there was certainly no political motivation for the CIA to restrain it's criticism of Nehru. The issue of "Who lost China?" had sparked a vicious partisan debate in the U.S. that would have been fresh in people's minds at that time. If Democrats wrote this report, they would have been anxious to show that China wasn't really "lost."
 * The report covers information that was publically available at that time. It contains no inside information concerning China motives. The criticism of India is fine as far as it goes, but the fact remains the Chinese army was preparing an attack long before Nehru's forward policy or the border skirmishes in 1962. Based on quotes Garver gives, Mao had pretty much made up his mind back in 1959, i.e. immediately after Nehru gave the Dalai Lama asylum. Kauffner 10:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea, sure, every report that does not favor India you will call it "biased" or "politically motivated"
 * There was also certainly no political motivation for the CIA to restrain it's criticism of Communist China especially after the Korean War. This CIA report is for internal consumption, it is not supposed to be censored or restrained in anyway. It is only censored/restrained/doctored when it goes thru the White House for the public release...as has happened to the Iraq WMD report...it is unconceivable to think that US President get a biased version of CIA report.218.208.24.235 00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * CIA has many defects and internal chaos. We can't rely on CIA reports. CIA messed at times in the Cold War era, the US and the world, like its counter part KGB.Lustead 16:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To Lustead: The credibility of the CIA can be reviewed if readers were to read the CIA article (which, by the way, is not under contest for neutrality). The article does mention that the "CIA" wrote the articles and therefore, is responsible for the contents of its report. However, the CIA is the intelligence organization of the most powerful nation in the world, and a superpower at the time when the article was written, with access to knowledge and information that are sometimes not available to the public. Therefore, its reports are as credible, if not more so, than any published history books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuxuan dang (talk • contribs) 08:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Typos
Every instance of "it's" in the text needs to be changed to "its". ¿SFGi Д nts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 01:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected
I've unprotected this article, as it appears the dispute is either over, or the participants have given up. This page is still on my watchlist, and if the edit war resumes, so will the protection. With having not edited in over three weeks, this hopefully will not be the case. However, please use descriptive edit summaries and explain any potentially controversial edits on this page. - auburn pilot   talk  16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise version
I'm adding the compromise version from User:Traing/Sino-Indian War to the page. If you can readd POV deletions or make edits on that it's encouraged. HOWEVER, I will not appreciate you simply copy-pasting from an April 2007 version simply because that's before I summarized it. If I deleted legit content, tell me. Traing 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Still making stuff up?
"It is suggested that Mao also wanted to propose Lin Biao with a decisive military defeat over India which would increase his popularity as well as that of the People's Liberation Army.  "

I challenge anyone to find anywhere where the article says that, or a single mention of Lin Biao, or a single sentence stating Mao's intentions were to win a victory to increase his popularity or that of the army. Link to Epoch Times article is right here. This is why I don't simply trust edits and go and verify each edit. Otherwise, certain POV-pushers (you know who you are) will quickly take the opportunity to sneak in all sorts of fabricated edits. --Yuje 04:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Sneak in all sorts of fabricated edits?". I did some research and found out that this idea has been present in the article as early as your edit in November 2006. Of course, so I'm sure the certain POV pushers frankly have no idea who they are. Traing 07:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Mao's intentions are only known by himself. So, claims on Mao's intentions are speculations.  Postdoc 14:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This article favors India over China
Why is article turning into a propaganda machine for the Indian army?


 * Anti-chinese government is like an unwritten by-law of the wiki foundation.

-- I would like to say that the communist governments tried to brain wash their people but failed, while some other governments seemed have done a good job. So I see miss-understanding toward communist China in many places.

One side used forward policy and one side stopped the war utilaterally. Let's forget about the word and check the fact. Think about who was trying to attack and who was trying to barely keep what they have and the peace. I know people from both side are brain washed by their governments but let's see the fact, again the fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sombertruth (talk • contribs).


 * Very good point. It is an irony that some people claim communism brain-wash its people, even though they themselves are literally "washed", or baptized, as they claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.68.139 (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

i have a question. why is it that the indian source said it have over 3000 kill while the section below indicate much less death. and the opposite for the chinese deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.244.232 (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

some1 with time should rewrite this article in a neutral point of view with facts not propaganda from the indians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.244.232 (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the entire article needs a rewrite. The size of the article is fine as I would prefer more information over less.  The problem is that almost the entire article sounds as if it were written by an Indian general attempting to explain/justify his poor performance.  I have no problem with India, or favor towards China, I just think that this article is blatantly written with a bias.  In addition, many portions read like a badly written newspaper article or fiction novel.  The article is important and worth the time required to clean it.  Thanks.Furtfurt (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is overly biased against the Chinese in favor of the Indian side. If you just read the article without looking at the process of the war, final casualties, and post war status, you'd think that the Indian army had held up several Chinese divisions with a few hundred men. Requesting a rewrite. Gryffon (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is very pro-Indian
It seems like this article has turn into an China bashing and pro-Indian article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.117.66.143 (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is this? The end of this article says "The process of peace is disconnected on both sides and China remains fairly unilateral in their thinking. China has taken more steps towards border domination in recent years and China is in a more advantageous military position at this point.[49]" This is probably one of the most bias article I have seen in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.117.66.143 (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

PRO INDIAN AS USUAL
as with most indian articles this article has been infested by indians trying to rub out actual events in history wikipedia needs to clamp down on indians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.127.97 (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is so incredibly biased in Indian favour that it could almost be called propaganda. The Indians lost the conflict especially because of the ineptness of their armed forces respectively their Intelligence and their leaders. The Indian forces were undersupplied and not equipped to fight in such great heights. Indian Intelligence assured that the situation on the Chinese side was even worse and the Chinese would never put up a fight. These were the premises under which Operation Leghorn was instigated which was a total failure. The advancing Indian forces were met by numerically very much superior Chinese force which routed them. This event in fact started the war. After that the Chinese infiltrated the Indian positions in two offensive movements in the East and West. Since the Chinese reached their military targets and breached the Indian defensive lines, they won the war outright.

When the article implies the Indians were consciously unprepared for action because Nehru was such a big pacifist, this is outright false. The Indians tried to agressively occupy the contested areas although they were logistically unable to mount such an operation. The only reason for Operation Leghorn was the extreme arrogance of the Indian military leadership towards the Chinese military forces and their underestimation of their logistic and military capabilities. This arrogance shows even through in the article where the author implies a certain Indian military superiority had the conflict gone on. So please change the whole thing to give it some objective value. The article as it stands is not objective since it plays to the Indian POV that they were unpreparedly attacked within their rightful national boundaries by the Communist hordes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.14.60 (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, very well said. I just love those Indian propaganda saying "India lost the Sino-Indian War because India trusts China too much etc and etc." The truth is India lost the war because of incredible arrogance coming from their side. Notice the whole article didn't even mention China won the war and India lost it. The Indian users here make it sounds like the war end in a draw.

Wow. It's incredible how terribly this whole article is written. I think it's fine to talk about certain people's opinions on this war, but these opinions should be clearly labeled as such. If this is how the average Indian feels about this conflict, I feel like they are not looking at their history based on empirical facts, to their own detriment. Also, in terms of a small numbers of "brave Indians" facing all these "Chinese hordes," the article talks only about Chinese attacks on Indians, but surely there were Indian attacks on Chinese entrenchments. My point is that using when one group attacks the other when the defenders have had time to entrench themselves, then of course it is likely that there will be more causalities among the attackers. In the cases where Indian forces attacked well entrenched Chinese forces, the casualties among Indians would be greater. To the people who have contributed to this article to get it like this: can you honestly believe that what you have written is unbiased? Replace China with India and read it over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.130.37 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is biased and inaccurate
I just read through this article (unfortunately) and the number of discrepancies it has with other historical military documents on this conflict is ridiculous. The article is extremely biased, and in fact, inaccurate on numerous accounts. Hopefully, someone with a little more time (and intellect) can proofread this document and edit in the correct information. Right now, its more propaganda than history. RedStorm19 (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious statement

 * "While India has allowed more scrutiny on the events leading to the war, with numerous publications from India exposing the Indian government's inadequate handling of the matter, on the other hand, published scholarship in China is still expected to explain and justify, not to criticize, the decisions of the Chinese Communist Party, at least on such sensitive matters as war."

This statement is highly dubious. First of all, the source cited, Garver, doesn't actually make this claim about the Indian government allowing more scrutiny.

Secondly, until 2005, (when the Right to Information Act was passed in India), Indian citizens didn't have unrestricted access to government documents and communications. For decades after the war, material related to the Sino-Indian war was still restricted by the Official Secrets Act of 1923. The "publications from India exposing the Indian government's inadequate handling of the matter" are still classified.

Furthermore, publications that "compromise the sovereignty of India" are still banned in India. The whole law is cited in Maxwell's book. This has resulted in bans of books related to the Sino-Indian War which present an unfavorable view towards India: these include Maxwell's and Alistair's books. These also include publications which have maps that don't show all of Kashmir as belonging to India.

Frankly, I think the numerous comments made above about Indian bias have a good point. Biases like mentioned here will continue to creep in as long as editors continue to add in embellishments to the facts like this.--Yuje (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a ridiculously biased article
Someone please read the Chinese Offensive section and the tell me that it's not biased towards the Indian side. Why is there so much mention of Indian troop heroics and awards? I don't believe I have ever read phrases like "the Indians fought to the death" and its various iterations so many times in an article. I go check the source and it turns out to be an Indian history website. I had to delete/reword it all. Had I read only the descriptions of the battles, I would've though that India completely dominated the Chinese forces in every battle, inflicting huge casualties on them, when you can see it's the other way around according to the statistics! I have no finished editing to make this part of the article NPOV, but I have a feeling it would get reverted anyways. Ashkenazi78 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples of Indian-POV: I removed the information about the Indian Major and his achivements. I removed many, many phrases of "heavy casualties" when describing Chinese losses since it was clear that when Indians lost men, it was due to "fighting to the death", "logistical inadequacies", and "cutoff retreat". The article made it appear as if the Indian army hardly lost any men in the conflict compared to the Chinese army!Ashkenazi78 (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mao: The Unknown Story – a book unsuitable for historical reference.
The reference 'Mao: The Unknown Story' and the contents based on citing this reference was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.67.190 (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Indian articles
It seems to me this article demonstrates what is wrong with Wikipedia articles written by Indians in general – completely biased and totally unbelievable. Even a 7 year old would struggle to believe what is written here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol india got creamed by the chinese. CREAMED. Vlad Dracula (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Need archiving
This talk page is very long. Can someone archive it? Oh I see how to do it now.

Some points may be worth considering
I have refrained myself from editing this article because, being an Indian, I might have a certain POV towards this conflict and might not be able to write an unbiased account of the war. However, from different sources, I have come across certain information which might be worth considering -

Shovon 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) India had some kind of military co-operation treaty with Tibet before the annexation by the PLA. (Did it contribute anything to the war?)
 * 2) India had supported PRC to be given the UN seat instead of the Nationalist China (Taiwan).
 * 3) The then Indian Prime Minister, Nehru had actually entered in to a Panchsheel (five policies for peaceful co-existence) with China.
 * 4) India had a forward policy, which led to direct confrontation with China.
 * 5) PRC decisively won the battle and could have captured much more than what it chose to retain.
 * 6) Also can someone do a comparison between the IAF and the Chinese Air Force during that time? As I have come across numerous articles from defence experts, that India could have had a more favourable outcome had it chosen to use the Air Force.

In response to 1 yes India post Colonel Young Husband's Lhasa expedition had and after the lapse of British Paramountancy the treaty would have been transferred to India, unlike the position that is claimed by Chinese i.e. one of it lapsing in 1947 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.165.98 (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to bring to your notice "India has never attacked any other country in its know history for the last 5000 years". This article seems to be written by a Chinese Extremist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.195.137 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

you're an indian asshole.

Sources for solution
Quotes from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9049823/McMahon-Line "McMahon Line." Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008]:

"Delegates of the Chinese republican government also attended the Simla Conference, but they refused to sign the principal agreement on the status and boundaries of Tibet on the ground that Tibet was subordinate to China and had not the power to make treaties. The Chinese maintained this position until the frontier controversy with independent India led to the Sino-Indian hostilities of October–November 1962. In that conflict the Chinese forces occupied Indian territory south of the McMahon Line but subsequently withdrew after a ceasefire had been achieved."

[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9111207/Arunachal-Pradesh "Arunāchal Pradesh." Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008]:

"After the independence of India in 1947, China made claims to practically the whole area covered by the districts of East and West Kāmeng, Lower and Upper Subansirī, East and West Siang, and Lohit, arguing that the McMahon Line had never been accepted by China and was the result of British “aggression.” In letters to the Indian prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, the Chinese prime minister, Zhou Enlai, quoted a map in the 1929 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica showing the disputed territory as Chinese, with the boundary following the alignment of Chinese maps. Some Chinese maps before 1935 showed the North East Frontier Agency (Arunāchal Pradesh) as part of India, and since then as part of Tibet. The Survey of India (1883) showed the disputed tribal areas as de facto administered by British India. British and Indian maps since 1914 have usually followed the McMahon Line. If the Chinese claims were allowed, the Indian-Chinese border would follow roughly the margin of the Assam plain, a frontier almost impossible to defend. Following this dispute, Chinese troops crossed the McMahon Line on August 26, 1959, and captured an Indian outpost at Longju, a few miles south of the line. They abandoned this in 1961 but in October 1962 crossed the line, this time in force. After first striking toward the Tanglha ridge and Tawang near the Bhutan border, the Chinese later extended their attack along the whole frontier. Deep inroads were made at a number of points. Later the Chinese agreed to withdraw approximately to the McMahon Line and in 1963 returned Indian prisoners of war."

Play nice now, Goring 53 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't agree with the whole "border dispute" theory of the war, although the current version of the article states this as if it was a simple fact. The territory that is supposedly being disputed is almost worthless. India presented the McMahon Line to Zhou in 1954, and China did not object. Mao was always looking to stir up a war or crisis somewhere because that was his style. Why India? Mao felt humiliated when Nehru gave the Dalai Lama asylum in 1959. China took several years to prepare the offensive against India. This is a documented fact because during the buildup period, the Chinese sent military supplies to Tibet through Calcutta, right under the noses of clueless Indian customs agents. So the reasons for the war pre-date both the Dhola issue and the forward policy. The Chinese withdrew when they ran out of supplies, even though that meant returning the disputed territory to India. Kauffner (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Kauffner, what on earth are you talking about? Could you cite your sources? If the Chinese ran out of supplies, then how on earth could the Indians be any better at getting their own supplies to the area? Mao couldn't care less where the dalai went; he allowed dalai to leave and had him shadowed to the Chinese border, as he 'escaped'. And Kauffner, are you inferring that the Indians are a bit dim-witted? 86.161.56.118 (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The territory is almost worthless but people dispute over less. India rejected the McMahon line.  They tried to insist on it and when they saw that the legal claim was weak they opted to argue that the watershed was the traditional border and so made an argument based on past usage.  The war started when India began moving soldiers beyond the MM line to the watershed.  To assert that the Chinese planned the War is a-historic as far as I can see.  Mao did not go around starting wars because of he felt humiliated.  He did not even do so despite the fact the Indians were supporting Tibetan guerillas.  The Chinese did not withdraw because of a lack of supplies.  They withdrew to the border they wished to have and which India would not accept – the McMahon line.  In the end the war is about the border.   Lao Wai (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This article by the author of the official Indian history of the war makes a convincing case that China planned its offensive against India well in advance, although the stuff at the end about the Cuban missile crisis strikes me as a bit speculative. If China planned from the beginning to withdraw from the disputed territories, that suggests the motivation was something other than territory. Mao liked to keep China in a permanent state of crisis and this a reoccuring theme in his foreign policy -- think of Zhenbao Island, a dispute that nearly led to a Sino-Soviet nuclear war in 1969. Kauffner (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Mao in all honesty did like to keep his country in a permanent state of crisis, but put in perspective his actions were much less harsh than the permanent crises the USA and Britain entertain the world with. The Indians are greedy and totally biligerent. Even the Indian name for the area means China as the word 'Chin' is Hindi for China. Given the geographic place names given in the article are Sino-tibetan, the Indians have no cause to believe the area was Indian. The Indians simply wanted to annex anywhere they wanted to and to treat Chinese as if it were Goa. Unfortunately for the Indians they picked the wrong people to mess around with. 86.161.56.118 (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP 86.161.56.118 you have no right to use the offensive sentences like "Indians are greedy and totally biligerent". I think u meant to say "belligerent". No wonder you have limited knowledge of history, culture and facts similar to your limited knowledge of language use and rebuttals. Even the provocative language used by you in above sentence seems more belligerent to me :). So please first improve your way of thinking and hostile behaviour before coming to discuss sensitive issues at international platforms. Try to do some research before coming to early conclusions. —Preceding [[User:Systemetsys|Systemetsys (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)]] comment added by Systemetsys (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Military Victory
The 1962 war saw the worst defeat suffered by the Indian army. Still some editors are putting Military victory for India in the article. Please stop this. This is nothing but denial of your own history. Shovon (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have great admiration for the Indian people. They are great doctors, dentists, scientists, lawyers and so and so on. But the Indian military can never defeat the Chinese military on Chinese soil. 86.161.56.118 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From the looks of it, they couldn't do so on Indian soil either :) Ah but times change...TheBlueKnight (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

the Background: China suffered Three Years of Natural Disasters, severe starve
Why a lot of researchers ignor the backgound of China in that war: the Three Years of Natural Disasters(1959–1961)? In that period, Chinese met 3-year-long great famine and severe financial crisis. This disaster induced millions, even more, died in starvation or undernourish.

In the summer of 1962, the Chinese Kuomintang troops in Taiwan exercised large scale mobilization attempt to counter attack and recovery the mainland. The corresponding military actions of the People's Liberation Army of China were concentration and maneuver almost all 10 first-class combat-readiness infantry divisions and several fighter division of PLAAF into Fujian Province to meet enemy head-on. This was called "Urgent combat readiness in South-east Coastal (1962)" in Chinese modern military history.

Another important international background was the Cuba Missile Crisis in the same period. Mao Zedong was good at exploiting the world situations when he made import decisions, e.g. when the PLA launched the 823 Artillery Bombardment in 1958 against the Kuomingtang troops in Kinmen Island, Americans, the Kuomingtang's main ally, were involving the 1958 Lebanon crisis. This action is regarded a pride and exhibition of military-political intelligence of Mao's in China. ligand (ligand) 15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

because the famine has NOTHING to do with the war, stop trying to add irrelevant pieces of information.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

According your logic, the Great Depression has NOTHING to do with World War II? That the main origins of the wars. ligand (ligand) 5:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

no what im saying is that user is obviously anti chinese and somehow thinks the famine would be an indian military victory......ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is some (indirect) relation. the pressue on China from the famine and Taiwan deemed that China would like to avoid a war as much as it could, and is part of the reason for the final withdrawal to the pre-war LAC.

The Natural Disaster and Famine had no direct relations with border dispute. If anything, that only proved the Chinese was capable of defending its territories even when it was in great difficulities.

Response to User:Colliver55
Hi, the paragraph which you had removed (not edited, as claimed by you) goes like this - "India's military became increasingly well-trained and potent. In the 1960s and 70s, India allied with the Soviet Union to encircle China. The continued military modernisation in India led to a change in the military equation between the two countries, where India were earlier far outnumbered and lacked experience. This was evidently successful, as India achieved military gains over Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and 1999 and now maintains the third largest military in the world. According to John W. Garver, the Indian military and Indian-trained Tibetan Armed Forces pose a modern threat to China which would likely not be present had China not opted for war against India. "

Could you please take the pain to point out the so called POV in this. Also, please do not pass on orders like you did here. A little please here and Thanks there does not harm anybody. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Shovon you are in the wrong. This article has now been protected. I will not waste my time with you. Colliver55 (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! Your smugness amuses me. Shovon (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I had probably edited or reverted edits in this article twice in last ten days. Your statement tries to implicate that I am responsible for the article getting protected. Your previous edits have made it abundantly clear that you are quite uncivil when it comes to communication with other editors. Perhaps, it will be a good idea for you to start from having a look at this. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Blah blah blah! How is that for civil? Colliver55 (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * May be, it would be a good idea for me not to waste my precious time with you. Btw, first of all, learn how to post messages. Shovon (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You ask me to be civil so here goes: I hereby cordially invite you to admit to the error of your deeds in unfairly and unjustly editing the article, so as to further the experience of all people using Wikipedia. Colliver55 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be reasonable Colliver55. Like you, I am in favour of removing the paragraph in question, but we need to discuss this in good faith with other editors.BeyRel (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I apologise for my outburst. It just seems Wikipedia is being used to further peoples interpretation of events rather than the event itself. Colliver55 (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Shovon when the article is unprotected we need to reach a compromise on this article. The article is in a sorry state at the moment and needs some serious editing. It is full of inuendo, peacock and weasel words, and generally just paints a rosy picture for the Indian side of the story. Basically it tries to justify why India lost and how great it has become since. The article should include an analysis of both the Chinese and Indian side before and after the conflict, but the article must be fair to both parties. I hope we can agree on this. Colliver55 (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with you, Colliver. If you see my earlier edits, I have always reverted edits which have tried to paint a larger than life picture of the Indian side. The truth is we lost and we lost very badly. In fact, the region which I hail from, was at the mercy of the Chinese troops. Jawaharlal Nehru had bid farewell to this North East Region of India in a radio broadcast.


 * Regarding the reverting of your edits which set off the chain of events, I just saw that a redlinked user has removed some apparently referenced paragraph. That's why I had reverted.


 * In any case, after 30th, we would have to work a lot on this article if we want it to be a GA. We can start with removing the POV. Looking forward to work as a team and not as opponents. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Shovon. The article is currently protected, but I have added it to my watched articles, so I will know when the article is being edited again. I apologise for my earlier behaviour, but it's so easy to let nerves get frayed when editing Wikipedia – it's amazing how personal Wikipedia can become lol! Thanks. Colliver55 (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Korea experience
The PLA overran most Indian posts with ease after their experience in the Korean War.(garbage the Chinese units in question were never sent to Korea) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.83.69 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

i think what it was trying to say was that the experience gained by the chinese in the korean war proved useful. Zoomzoom316 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

but that is only speculation. no one can say that unless the chinese themselves showed proof, right?

India got CREAMED
Just wanted to point out, thank you. 129.173.233.137 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * combat at altitudes of 14000 feet? war after hardly one decade of independence (after 150 years of slavery under british rule)? internal religious violence hindu-muslim (resulting in creation of pakistan and partition)?


 * if u feel that you can boost ur ego by fighting india when it was in that condition. then thats ur issue. The definition of "creamed" would be something like what happened to china at the hands of a smaller japan.


 * technically war between india and china is not possible because of the himalayas. and if ur intention is to make india waste money by buying weapons and not concentrating on development of the people. then u have failed.


 * also make sure u go back to the article and read the later skirmishes section. in both 1967 and 1986 indian forces pushed back the chinese from arunachal pradesh. the "chola incident" and "nathula border clash" for some reason both these border clashes were not reported by chinese media. i wonder why?


 * i am sorry but u will have to look for someone else to fight with. we dont have a "revenge" mentality, which i am assuming is something u are trying to cultivate in us to prevent us from concentrating on education and development of people. at the moment we are too busy developing our country, we dont have time for war games in the himalayas. maybe u can try russia? Zoomzoom316 (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets not start this kind of My-country-has-a-bigger-stick-than-yours-type of flame wars here. War is a brutal business. People die in wars, horribly. It doesnt matter to a mother who has lost a son in a war which her country won decisively. BeyRel (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueKnight (talk • contribs)

combat at altitudes of 14000 feet? war after hardly one decade of independence (after 150 years of slavery under british rule)? internal religious violence hindu-muslim (resulting in creation of pakistan and partition)? if u feel that you can boost ur ego by fighting india when it was in that condition. then thats ur issue. The definition of "creamed" would be something like what happened to china at the hands of a smaller japan

Actually China were in the same situation as the Indians. China was fighting a civil war (nationalists, communists and separatist warlords) during the time the Japanese invaded, they also suffered from poverty and a corrupt government, as well as internal unrest – Just like India. The Chinese army had to borrow an airforce from the U.S, and they were poorly equipped compared to the Japanese army. But despite the inferior technology, the Japanese still werent able to conquer China, and both sides fought for 9 years of full scale battles, in which the Japanese and especially the Chinese, took millions of casualties (including civilians).

So in reality, You can not say the Japanese "creamed" the Chinese, which also means that we cannot say that we "creamed" India, because they were suffering many internal problems just like China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.45.146 (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: Chinese Military Victory
For all practical purposes, it is a fact that the Indians got a black eye. However, wouldn't a military victory require some form of "Treaty of Surrender" – I don't think there was one. Could someone shed some light? Thanks. TheBlueKnight (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This event is arguably regarded as a "war" since the two countries neither declared war, nor severed diplomatic links. I would say it would be more appropriate to call it "Sino-Indian Border Conflict", with Chinese pushed Indians back to the "McMahon line" and, after achieved their limited miliary goal, unilaterally declared a cease fire. So there is no such thing as India's "Treaty of Surrender". Xingdong (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A military victory is defined as a situation where the military accomplishes all or the majority of its stated objectives. Good example would be the recent Iraq War where the US invaded and obliterated the Iraqi army without any formal surrender. (Psychoneko (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

The Battle of 1962 versus the War that is continuing today
- ;) Just like China got CREAMED by the Japanese ..;) ? or - Like China got CREAMED by the Vietnamese in 1979 ?? :) ? - ;) Just like the way tiny Tibet is taking on China just now ?
 * China got CREAMED by the Japanese? You know who surrendered to who at last? Unconditionally? Xingdong (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We can go on insulting each other – or try to resolve the issue

Fact of the matter is India did lose the 1962 battle. There can be many explanations. but Bottom line China was prepared and India was not ( arrogance of the then Indian Govt is definetly one of the reasons)

Lets talk about the consequences of 1962 and the situation as it stands NOW

Now – India and China are extremely far apart and are poised directly against each other (the existence of the above arguments by so may prove this point) Now – India is every day ready for a war with China – thanks to 1962 (so is that progress?) Now – India developed and deployed nukes against China Now – People of India have a strong understanding and support Tibet....... thanks to 1962.

India has maintained the Tibet card and using it to slowly pin prick China – and will continue to do so. Is China better of since 1962 ?? ( if not for 1962 – would this have happened?) The Free Worlds opinion is against China right now.

India lost the battle of 1962 – but the War seems to be in India's favor at the moment.


 * First, China did NOT get creamed by the Vietnamese. Second, the fact that China got creamed by the Japanese during WW2 has nothing to do with this article.


 * No one is insulting each other. This is an enclyclopedia on a historic event.

User


 * "The Free Worlds opinion is against China right now. " The existence of whatever "free world" bullshit is controversial at first not to mention whose opinion is against whom.
 * "Is China better of since 1962 ?? ( if not for 1962 – would this have happened?)" China's 3rd manned space mission to carry out spacewalk is scheduled on late 2008 and expecting a space station be launched after this. It test lauched ASAT weaspon successfully long ago.  Where is India's ASAT?  All I heard of is some Indian official claiming it is something well within their current capability with just a little enchancement of their current technology.
 * "Now – People of India have a strong understanding and support Tibet" sadly, most who are outside China and claim they understand Tibet are only those hypocritical individuals who know how to use Tibet as a political card against China. None of them really care for the well being of the Tibetan nor contribute a cent to the development of the Tibet region.  On the contrary, highways, hospitals/public health care, public education, thriving Tourism industry are tiny examples of the things that the Chinese govt made to the Tibet region.  Something didn't exist at all during the day of Dalai Lama.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.214.62.38 (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * BeyRel|BeyRel]] (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Location of Aksai Chin
Looking at a map of the area (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/China_India_western_border_88.jpg), it seems to me that the current description of the region's location is misleading: "...the Aksai Chin region, an area the size of Switzerland, that sits between the   Chinese provinces of Tibet and Xinjiang."

The description of the region's location on the Wikipedia Aksai Chin page reads as follows: "Aksai Chin is a region located at the juncture of China, Pakistan, and India."

Would not both be better replaced by something like "... [a disputed region lying] between India and China ..." or   "... [a disputed region lying] between China and India ..."?

Incidentally, I'm neither Indian nor Chinese; I'm Dutch-Canadian.

Heavenlyblue (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The first description of Aksai Chin is more accurate. Your suggestion is not appropriate here. For example, we can say "...Ottawa, a mid-size city, that sits between the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec". But we can't say "...[Ottawa laying]between Canada and the U.S.A." Xingdong (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Unverified Claims and Peacock Terms
I wish to make the following edits but I wish invite discussions before that. Here is what I propose to do

- Delete the following texts in the Aftermath section: India's military became increasingly well-trained and potent. In the 1960s and 70s, India allied with the Soviet Union to encircle China. The continued military modernisation in India led to a change in the military equation between the two countries, where India were earlier far outnumbered and lacked experience. This was evidently successful, as India achieved military gains over Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and 1999 and now maintains the third largest military in the world. This paragraph contains either unverified claims or claim that are of questionable relevence to the subject. Its purpose appears to be one of vindicating India's defeat in the 1962 war rather than providing objective information.

- Move the following texts from the Diplomatic Process section to the Ceasefire section In 2001, there were reports that India had actually taken two prisoners during the war, Yang Chen and Shih Liang. They were not released at the conclusion of the war. Instead, the two were imprisoned as spies for three years before being interned in a mental asylum in Ranchi, where they spent the next 38 years under a special prisoner status. After their case was reported on by local journalists, the Indian government took actions to release them. After the Chinese government investigated the case, it lobbied for the release of the two men. Both men, now well into their 60s, have since been reunited with their families in Sichuan.[78] The Government of India has since issued a clarification that the men were not PoWs.[79]

Comments & discussions please?

--BeyRel (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These should be removed. The two people seemed more like innocent persons taken, or "kidnapped", by Indians. I would say this was much like Japanese kidnapped from Japan by North Koreans in the 60' or 70'. Be careful, Chinese could make this a big diplomatic issue. Xingdong (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

End of war
Why did China stop? or why didnt they demand, take more from india in the crese frie then they did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

its probably because the weapons were on their way from america. so maybe china decided to stop because the indian soldiers were going to get the weapons soon. its kinda weird because later in the war against pakistan, america armed pakistan. while we indians got our weapons from russia :) Zoomzoom316 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Chinese withdrew when they ran out of supplies. There was only one narrow highway between China proper and Tibet at that time. The Chinese prepared for the war by sending supplies through Calcutta for a build up on the border. They obviously couldn't continue to do this once the war started, so they had ability to conduct an offensive for only a fixed length of time. Mao had no interest in the disputed territory, only in teaching India a lesson and creating a crisis for reasons of internal Chinese politics. Kauffner (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Chinese might run out of supplies" theory is only some personal speculation. In the war, the Chinese army developed very effecient way of supply. For a few days continuous fight, there wasn't a problem. Anyway, down the hills of Himalayas, there are vast plains, very convenient for large army movement. If, and only if, Chinese had will, they could accomplish what they wanted. Xingdong (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * During the war with China, it was Kennedy who was President and he was decidedly pro-India. Besides, Americans would have helped India sooner but they were busy at that time with the Cuban Missile Crisis – if you see the movie "13 days" with Kevin Costner – you will notice that the India-China war is mentioned with a quip, "Galbraith is taking care of that". By the time of war with Pakistan, Kennedy had been assassinated and Pakistan had joined CENTO – a central asian version of NATO. India was offered to join it before Pakistan but Nehru in his infinite wisdom decided to remain "neutral" and with Pakistan cozying up to the Americans had no option but to cozy up to the Soviets. In 1962 – Soviet Union refused to help India but was more favourable to China. 04:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueKnight (talk • contribs)


 * later on china and soviet union had a split (sino-soviet split). the truth of the matter is that under the banner of communism the soviet union was trying to get rid of racist stuff and was trying to unite "the workers of the world". the sad part was that china did not want unity it wanted dominance. after the war with india, china thought that the same human wave tactics would help it win victory over russia but china lost and had to withdraw. as for india we have always had excellent relationships with both the soviet union and russia as well as america. hopefully that friendship should continue without much hassle. Zoomzoom316 (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mao and Khrushchev made a deal just before the war started. Mao would support Khrushchev on Cuba and Khrushchev would delay arm shipments to India. This is in Jung Chang's book. The Soviets were scheduled to deliver high altitude fighters to India. Mao had been toying with idea of war with India since 1959. When he heard about the fighter purchase, he knew it was time to hussle. Kauffner (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Zoomzoom316 & Kauffner, both of you are wrong again. China has always been independent as far as diplomacy goes. You can see it from Korean war, Vietnam war, and also this "India's China war". Unlike some country always called for help from other powers. You know, respect is gained, not given. Xingdong (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Diplomacy is always interdependent – there is give and take between all countries. China's continuous toeing of the American and British line in the UN Security Council led Russia to dub it "the imperialists' court jester". Respect is indeed earned and not demanded —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueKnight (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute
Why is this article dispute – what is the contention on both sides? Perhaps we should build a consensus and try and resolve it. TheBlueKnight (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The edit war was started by the IP puppet of a banned User:Nangparbat. I agree, that the particular paragraph is uncited and is writting like an opinion piece. May be rewriting the para in a proper tone will help. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The banner does nothing except clutter things up, but there some serious POV issues with the article. The Chinese took at least six months to prepare the logistics for the offensive. The article has a lengthy "Preparation for war" section, but it contains not a hint of this. Kauffner (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The neutrality of this article is really under dispute. There are a few places even rediculously cited "India official history". This site is not about Indian official history, nor Chinese official history. We desperately need some sources from third party, e.g. British reporter Neville Maxwell. Xingdong (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Objectivity of the declassified CIA documents
Someone decided to mention the declassification of CIA documents regarding the India-China situation from the 1950s. While I've normally held a level of respect for the CIA's objectivity in intelligence gathering, the 1950s was dominated by the freak senator McCarthy. That said, I do have some reservations about the objectivity of the CIA's report given the said background in the USA. Basically, could someone review the relevance of the CIA reports before using it on the article? Good example would be the paragraph that read: CIA documents created at the time revealed that Nehru had ignored Burmese premier Ba Swe when he warned Nehru to be cautious when dealing with Zhou.[29] They also allege that Zhou purposefully told Nehru that there were no border issues with India.[29] (Psychoneko (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC))


 * Well said. Further to that, I think the objectivity of sources from CIA/USA is very dubious, given the fact that they were hostile to then Communist China. We can not cite this source as neutral. Xingdong (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1962 War and Its Implications For Sino-India Relations
1962 War and Its Implications For Sino-India Relations Wang Hongwei

40 years have already passed since the 1962 war, but the shadow of that war still influences Sino-India relations developing in depth.

China and India, having a long history of friendly interactions and a fine tradition of learning from each other, both suffered from imperialist and colonialist aggression, oppression and exploitation. After achieving their independence and liberation respectively in the late 40’s of 20 century, they should had supported each other and learnt from each other, in the construction work of their own country, in order to make  peoples of both countries leading a happy life. But it was deplorable that due to the misperceptions and mistaken policies of a few political leaders, the development of Sino-India relations took up a winding way.

As regard the genesis of 1962 war, many eminent scholars across the world, such as Neville Maxwell, Karunakar Gupta, Steven Hoffmann and others, have made studies in depth, it is not pertinent for me to dwell on it here. But it should be noted that, the Nehru government not only took over the legacy of British imperialist strategic perceptions of security, interfered many times in the Tibet affairs of China, but demonstrated even more arrogant and un-rational on boundary issues than the British Raj. The British imperialists did draw an illegal “MacMahon Line”, but they dared not to occupy in actual deeds the territories of China to the south of that line, whereas the Nehru government did it. Evidence indicated that, in the early years after independence, Jawaharlal Nehru himself instructed privately Mullik, head of the Intelligence Bureau, to count China as an enemy. It was under his approval, Indian armed border police drove away the Tibetan administers and occupied Sela by force in 1948,.and later, occupied further Tawang and other Chinese territories to the south of “MacMahon Line” by force in 1952. But Nehru government did not stop here, it sought to decide for itself where India’s borders with China should lie and then impose the alignments it had chosen on China. In 1960, the Nehru government  not only refused to negotiate with Zhou Enlai who made a special trip to New Delhi in order to seek a friendly settlement of Sino-Indian boundary question, but refused any standstill agreement. In the following year, it ordered to carry out the forward policy. According this policy, the Indian army attacked unceasingly the PLA’s posts along the whole border areas and killed many Chinese soldiers, in an attempt to extrude Chinese army out of all the Chinese territory it claimed. This aggressive and provocative policy not only interrupted the status quo, but also made breach of the peace and tranquility along the whole border areas. Developing up to October, 1962, Nehru ordered the Indian army to take the offensive., and he made a statement about it on 12th of the same mouth.. His statement shocked the whole world. The New York Herald Tribune published an editorial titled “Neheru Declare A War Against China” the following day. All honest and sober-minded people could see that the 1962 war was imposed on China by the Neheru government. China had no other way out but lunched  counter-attack and adopted an preventive action then. The purposes of it were: (1) To defend peace and tranquility along the whole border areas; (2) To make the Neheru government to return back to the negotiating table. China had no any intention to solve the boundary question by force, this was proved by the fact that, as soon as the PLA won the victory in war, they returned to their original posts.

But, how the Neheru government explained the event to the Indian public and  people? It had no courage to admit its own mistakes and tell the truth to them, but adopted an un-honest and irrational means to blame it on China that, China conducted an “un-provoked aggression” against India, and China “betrayed India” etc.. This frame-up produced two kinds of negative and malign consequences: First, China’s image was turned into a devil since then in the mind of the Indian public and people; Second, India embarked on the intensive arming which led to a long-term confrontation between the two countries, and caused a huge unnecessary waste of manpower and material resources to both sides. These negative and malign consequences have really made those who are zealous to maintain Sino-Indian friendship, feel distressed. Though it was so, we have no reason to be crestfallen. As the saying goes, “the misfortune might be a blessing in disguise.” If the successors can learn the real lessons from the mistakes of their predecessors and turn them into lasting actions, it would be no difference for both peoples of the two countries to own an invaluable precious wealth.

Thanks to the late Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s historic visit to China in 1988, Sino-India relations have restored to normality gradually. During Indian Prime Minister P.V.Narasimha Rao’s visit to China in 1993, both sides signed the Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control in the China-India Border Areas. In 1996, an further agreement on “confidence-building measures in the military field along the LAC” was signed by both sides during Chairman Jiang Zemin’s visit to India. All these demonstrated that the two governments had become far-sighted and mature. This is the very reason that why  Sino-India relations has developed smoothly and quickly on the whole during the last more than 10 years, though it took an unexpected turn in 1998.

However, we should not sit conceited. It should be noted that, in terms of the populations, sizes, economic scales and the roles played in contemporary world by China and India, the co-operations between them are far to say having reached to the level they should be. What has obstructed Sino-India relations to be developed in depth and the potentials of them to be given full play? There are both objective and subjective factors. Judging from the present conditions, it seems that the subjective factors are prevailing, and the resistance are mainly from Indian side. Why I am so saying? Because in the India side, there still are a considerable number of political officials, armymen and thinktankers who have not liberated their minds from the shadows of the misunderstanding related to 1962 war. Many of them still adhere willingly or un-willingly, to the strategic perception of security prevailing in the old times, and count China as a threat or a potential adversary. In such a psychology and mentality, how could you expect to develop further Sino-India relations in depth? I don’t complain them, because the majority of them were also misled by the Neheru administration and few of them know the real situations in China. I believe, with increasing mutual exchanges and contacts, the day will come when they will realize that China is a true friend and brother of India. Now, the challenge facing us is, how effectively will the far-sighted statesmen and those of insight, make publicity the truth of 1962 war, and let that day come earlier.

The day when Sino-India misunderstanding is thoroughly dispersed, an era for Sino-India co-operations developing in depth will definitely come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.11.180 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

When I was traveling in Darjeeling and Sikkim in late Oct. 2008, I saw perhaps a hundred army trucks everyday plying the road to the border. Our guide said that they were supplying the troops at the front, stockpiling before the snow comes, when the road would be closed. I did not go near the front so I don’t know how it looks like, but two years ago when I was in Tibet, I did not see any military activity, actually I don’t recall seeing any uniformed military personnel at all during my two weeks traveling there.

I am a Chinese Canadian. Before I came to India to travel for six weeks; I just assumed that the relation between China and India was good, because there were some news about that both sides wanted to increase the trade between the countries across the Himalayas. There has not been a lot of news on the Chinese newspapers about India, so that got stuck on my mind. I knew there was a border war many years ago, that was provoked by the Indian and China won, but I thought it was settled. I did not know that the border problem was still there.

I was very surprised that there was a lot of news about China on the Indian news papers, even more surprised that the tone of this news was cool at best, and hostile some times. One government official said China was India’s competitor and “adversary”; another said that China was India’s “greatest security concern”. This in spite of the official position of improving relationship with China and was just days before the Mumbai incident! I asked a couple of local guides what they felt about China, both said that they were willing to let by gone be by gone and look forward for more cooperation. However the tone of their answer was a little strange, there was a magnanimous forgiving attitude in it, India lost the fight, but it did not sound like from someone who started it! I did not realized that perhaps their understanding of the war and mine may not be the same.

When I got home I started to research this topic. On almost all sources I consider “neutral”, which mostly are Western and Indian sources (there are almost no significant Chinese sources), including this Wikipedia entry, confirm what the Chinese government has been saying was true – at least on this topic, that India provoked the war, and the Indian government has not been forthright with there citizens; and the boundary issue has not been solved.

I am just an ordinary citizen, and not even a Chinese citizen at that. I don’t know what is on the Chinese governments mind, but from what I see it appears that the Chinese government is quite willing to put the boundary issue on the back burner and just move forward in trade and other relationship, something both sides can benefit immediately. There was a lot of “news” which everyone knows is tightly controlled by the government, about how China is ready to open up trading with India. When Britain “apologized” to China for its behaviour in this theatre last October, there was no news on the implication to India’s territorial claim. Several years ago when India finally released the two Chinese “POW” when the newspaper exposed them, 40 years after the war, after which China promptly returned all POWs, more than 3900. I don’t recall reading the story. The Chinese government must be trying to control the public opinion about India.

As things stand, it appears that China is ready to move ahead, but I don’t know if India is. The public opinion in India may still be not ready. The boundary issue can be put aside for the time being but eventually will have to be faced. China might have accepted Aksai Chin in exchange for NEFA in 1962, but the situation is different now that Aksai Chin is not as strategically as important to China as it was then. Could India get as good a deal as it could have got? I have been to both countries; at this point China is more advanced, and is pulling ahead, especially in terms of diplomatic influences. It would be beneficial to India to settle this sooner rather than later. However India may not perceive it as urgent, it has a big problem with Pakistan as well as a lot of internal strives. I don’t know if it has the wherewithal to proceed quickly with China, which overall is a more cohesive country.

Over the past thousands of years, China and India by and large had a very good relationship. China got Buddhism from India, and I saw those fishing nets in Karalla, introduced from China in the 14th century. Chinese came and instead of raising colonial wars, left behind something that is still being used today. China has no design on Indian land. It wants a negotiated rather than a forced settlement on the border issue. I hope I will live to see better days between the two countries. 2009.01.1067.204.44.98 (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)CC
 * Hi, a nice post. But there have been some issues, due to which, there is skepticism in India regarding China. Let me note down some of these points below -


 * 1. Although India provoked China, it was the Chinese who attacked first. Also, all the reviews (except those published by communist intellectuals) of the war show that China was well prepared while India was not.


 * 2. China has a long term history of supporting Pakistan. In fact, without Chinese know-how, it would have been impossible for Pakistan to have its own nuclear bombs.


 * 3. China had also supported all the Indian insurgent groups in the North East in 1960s, 1970s and well in to 1980s. Till date, Chinese made arms and ammunition forms the backbone of the major insurgent outfits in the North East India.


 * 4. Even in the recent past (before 26/11 Mumbai Attacks), China vetoed the security council's move to declare Jamat Ud Dawah and some other terrorist organizations based in Pakistan, as terrorist organisations.


 * I can say that this is not an exhaustive list. There are many other issues also which need to be solved before India and China can have a peaceful and mutually beneficial relationship. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Re 1. above. Who started first depends on point of view. The aim of the forward policy was to militarily drive Chinese back to the line Nehru wanted to impose upon China. China was more than willing to talk but Nehru refused, employed aggressive military tactics and almost declared war on China, yet he did not prepared for war. The reason for this certainly was the mystery of the century. Who do you blame for this? Did he expect China keep turning the other cheek when facing this forward policy? Did he expect China to give 6 month notice?

Re. 2 above. I don’t think China had preference to Pakistan over India at the beginning, but my enemy’s enemy is my friend. Very often that is how international politics work, like it or not. Would China back Pakistan had India been friendlier?

Re 3. above. I did not know there were insurgent groups in the NTFA until you brought it up here. But it is understandable given the situation before the 80’s, the same situation as with Pakistan. Even more so because the area is under dispute and ethnically and culturally those people are oriental rather than Indo-Aryan. Is China still supporting those groups militarily? If so, why does not India protest? China also accused India of supporting the Tibetan separatist too. In a way it still is by keeping those “Tibetan refugee camps”.

Re 4. above., To an outsider like me, the Pakistan-India conflict is hard to understand. Is it a Muslim/Hindu religious fight or family quarrel? A terrorist to one is a martyr to another. Just look at the Palestinians. In any case, are these groups declared terrorist by Pakistan? If they are not, can you really expect China to do so?

The bottom line is that China appears to be willing to put these disagreements in the back burner and move ahead in areas that are mutually beneficial. What India really wants to do? If India is still skeptical about China, why does it make a policy of rapprochement? What has it to gain by delaying? Does it want China to bend to its every wish before moving? Just like Nehru wanted Chinese to be out of all disputed territories before he would “talk”?

I have written an article based on my original posting. I wanted to submit it to the Times of India but I could not find its editorial email address.

67.204.47.181 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)CC

I have some Chinese friends and I relate with your thoughts. Don't bother with the Times of India. They are anti-China. In fact, they are anything that sells copies. Try the Hindustan Times (feedback@hindustantimes.com). Good luck !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.55.104 (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I loathe getting into arguments, especially when the other side is worked up. From the tone of your post, you don't seem worked up. So I shall give you the crux of the matter - I am not a fan of Nehru – infact I think he was incredibly naive. Having said that,

1. It was India which supported the case for China's entry into the UN – the Chinese seat till then was occupied by Taiwan. 2. Nehru also signed the Treat of Peaceful Co-operation with China 3. The borders were not clear – there is a cultural overlap in the border areas – both could claim massive influence in the border regions 4. China has both covertly and overtly supported a ticking time-bomb named Pakistan and turned that ticking time-bomb into a nuclear time bomb. The going joke in India was 'Why did it take Pakistan 6 days to conduct nuclear tests after India? Ans. They were translating the manuals from Chinese to Urdu." 5. India gives refuge to everyone since eternity- Buddhists/Tibetans from Tibet, 10 million people from Bangladesh when it was East Pakistan, Tamils from Sri Lanka, persecuted Parsis for Iran – it is just a history of not refusing anyone refuge. 6. After 26/11 terrorist attacks in Bombay, I was at a rally at the Gateway of India – there were easily 70,000 people there if not more. Slogans abusing the government were rampant along with posters, demands for resignation etc. I met a Chinese tourist there – he was utterly shocked that Indians could so easily curse and protest against their governments without fear of reprisal. That to me is far more important as a citizen. Our countries have taken different models of governance and different models of economy. India's growth is a bit more rooted in the Indian market – the Chinese growth is simply unsustainable as it is built on exports exclusively. I assume the massive layoffs in China have already started and if they haven't they are just around the corner. China might build 90% of all cellphones in the world – but over 95% of the money is still made by Nokia in Finland and Ericsson in Sweden. I hope you get the drift. Besides this, the banks of China have simply no accountability. China, my friend is an economic disaster waiting to happen. For all its red tape and bureaucracy – the Indian system is a lot more open. You know the US debt to China? It is something like 700 Billion US$ - which is to say China has delivered goods and services to the USA worth 700 Billion US$ for which the Americans are yet to pay. What if they simply refuse to pay? If you owe the bank 100$ you have a problem, if you owe the bank 1 million $, the bank has a problem. China just happens to have bankrolled a lot of luxury goods and services for the US – something like 90% of the stuff in Wal-mart was from China. Heck, even the little Statue of Liberty mementos you get in NY were "Made in China". You have no idea of how bad it is going to get for China. TheBlueKnight (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * TheBlueKnight, I have worked with people from India for many, many years and I pay great respect to people from India. Which way is better, India's or China's, has been discussed over and over again – let's leave it in academic level. Time will prove everything. I personally wish both countries successful. However, I always get strange feelings when I visit some websites from India. If you read thru the forums, comments, you will see lots of nagetive comments at best, if not hatred, toward China(especially those comments writen in UPPER CASE). In China if you ask people's opinion about India, you would likely get some positive feedback. I think the politians in India should be responsible for most part of this. Like this border war, there were lots of facts Nehru didn't tell the public. By the way, the word "Indian" has become a derogatory word in Canada, so I would rather use "people from India".Xingdong (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this article is nortoriously pro-India
This article tried to paint China as aggressive and India as passive and peaceloving. Not mentioning those shameful braggings about those Indian army's "heroic death" in the article. There is even no mention that mentions China wins the war. I almost thought the war ended up in a draw after reading the article. Nice editing. My follow Indian patriots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.248.140.58 (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Truth is that China was aggresive and India thought of China as a partner, but after losing the war, India showed it as being passive and peaceloving (as most countries do after losing a war). It was the perfect time to attack India as India was a newly created nation (no nukes), partition with Pakistan, had very little presence on the Chinese border.China had a walk in the park and was brutal against India. 96.52.193.72 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a bit more complicated mate. Nehru had a stupid forward policy in place. Chinese were not exactly happy with India giving refuge to the Dalai Lama. China refused to accept the borders that it had agreed upon with the British. In all honesty, Britain was the stronger country then and pretty much imposed their will on the Chinese. All said and done – I agree China was the one who attacked and went on a rampage – but India did enough to piss it off. TheBlueKnight (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

1.	China had never agreed to the McMahon Line, had always maintained that it was illegal. Just that it could not do anything about it. It is so satisfying to see Britain apologized now for its behaviour then. It is also so sad that you need to be strong to get justice. 2.	Who attacked first depends on the POV. India employed the forward policy for over a year before the Chinese counter attacked. But why are you so hanged up on who attacked first? Does it make one feeling less guilty by accusing the other of attacking first? What matters is how India wants to proceed with respect to its relation with China now. I don’t see India making up its mind yet, and delaying it is not working to India’s favor. 67.55.16.222 (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)CC

The American's Role
I find this Wikipedia entry on the Sino-Indian War fair, not as fair as I would have liked but still fair, and quite detailed. My read of it is that the immediate cause of the war was Nehru’s Forward Policy, which was very aggressive. Nehru took this aggressive stand because he underestimated the Chinese reaction, for some reasons.

However, I remember many years ago I read a Chinese article saying that Nehru was encouraged to take an aggressive stand in the border dispute by the Americans. It was at the height of the cold war era, the Americans was trying to make as much trouble for the Chinese as possible; they were recruiting Tibetan in India to train them in guerilla warfare and airdropping them into China. It is understandable that the Americans would encourage Nehru to be aggressive in such circumstance.

There is no mention of this in this Wikipedia entry. Some cited references implicated this but none directly. I of course have no way to verify this. Can anyone comment?

Incidentally, the comments on the Chinese Wikipedia entry on this topic generally are critical of the Chinese government for voluntarily withdrawing from the recovered disputed area.

I am a Chinese Canadian; I have lived in Canada for over 40 years. I just finished a six week tour of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.3.252 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't think the war had much to do with the Forward Policy or the border dispute. Zhou had said nothing about the McMahon Line back in 1954. Mao liked to keep the international kettle boiling for domestic political reasons. (It took everyone's mind off the fact they were starving.) Nehru had ticked him off by giving the Dalai Lama asylum back in 1959. Mao authorized some border clashes that summer and these revealed that the Indian army was pathetically unprepared. He had planned to attack earlier, but pulled back when he realized that India could retaliate by allowing U-2 flights from its territory. (This would allow the CIA to get a look at the Lop Nor nuclear testing site.) Tell the superpatriots that the Chinese had no choice but to withdraw. They had run out of supplies and both the U.S. and Soviets were sending military aid to India. India received high altitude Soviet warplanes soon after the war.
 * In India's China War Maxwell claims the CIA gave Nehru some piece information that bolstered his confidence that China would not react to the Forward Policy. The CIA's supersecret "crown jewels" account of the war was declassified about a year ago and it didn't have anything terribly new in it, so I doubt the CIA was up to anything clever. In any case, the Forward Policy was something Nehru had his heart set on for many years. He was writing along these lines even before he became prime minister. So no matter what the CIA told him, I find it hard to pin the blame for this moronic policy on anyone other than Nehru. Kauffner (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Zhou did not mention the McMahon Line most likely because China does not recognize the British Colonial legacy. Basic fact is that the British arbitrarily drew this line as further as possible to defend the colonial India, and India, after gained its independence from Britain, took it for granted that the McMahon Line was their border. Also Nehru calculated that the Chinese wouldn't react too much if India advanced forward, slowly. I think the Chinese famine had no relationship with this border war. If anything, this only proved that the Chinese was able to win the war even in great difficulty. Xingdong (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nehru presented Zhou a map with the McMahon Line on it when they met in Beijing in 1954. And of course the line has been used on official maps of India since 1937. There was no indication that China disputed any of this until July 1958 when China published a map that showed NEFA as Chinese territory. The Communist Party under Liu Shaoqi turned against Mao in early 1962 on the issue of the famine, so Mao turned to Lin Biao and the army to "punish this party of ours." The military experts agree that China spent months or years on planning and preparation while the Indians were caught unprepared. Nehru eschewed traditional power politics out of high principle. He wanted to fight the Chinese the way he had the British, with "soul power", symbolism and self-righteousness. This is why he obsessed over old treaties, border disputes, maps, flying flags, and tiny militarily useless posts when he should have been thinking about air cover, logistics, and firepower. Kauffner (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally understand why Indian army were ill-prepared for the border war and I don't have much sympathy to them. It is well-known that China did not, and still does not, recognize the McMahon Line. If you understand this, then you will understand why the war has nothing to do with what happened within the Communist Party. There are lots of truth India government hasn't told its public. If it does so, "Indians will be shocked to discover that, when China crushed India in 1962, the fault lay at India, or more specifically, at Jawaharlal Nehru and his clique's doorsteps. It was a hopelessly ill-prepared Indian Army that provoked China on orders emanating from Delhi, and paid the price for its misadventure in men, money and national humiliation." Xingdong (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nehru knew very well that China did not recognize the McMahon Line. According to Neville Maxwell, he even know that it was a “scar inflicted on China” by the British, but “it was not in the Indian’s interest” to smooth this scar. So he was not acting on high principle. Assuming Kauffner was right that China did not dispute the Line at one point in 1954, but it is not clear in what context. China had maintained that the border was not demarcated before and appeared to be willing to trade NEFA for Aksai Chin, but Nehru refused to talk and even pushed over the Line. China prepared for the counter attack six months before hand, well after Nehru started the forward policy. He had only himself to blame. In my opinion, the war had everything to do with the forward policy and the border issue, and China's suspicion of Nehru's intention on Tibet.67.55.16.222 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)CC

Indian official history??
There are a couple of places citing "Indian official history", but have no link, citation, anything. Thus these places should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xingdong (talk • contribs) 17:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * At least part of the Indian official history has not been released by the Indian government – in the Henderson-Brook-Bhagat report. 67.55.16.222 (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)CC


 * "Indian official history" refers to History of the Conflict with China, 1962 by Atale and Sinha (1992). This book is online and not the same as the secret Henderson-Brooks Report. Kauffner (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Viewers beware: The "Indian official history" is written by Ministry of Defence of Indian Government, thus its objectivity is highly doubious. More objective report was the Henderson-Brooks Report, although done by two Indian army officials, it is regarded as more objective. However, the report was never made public and lies buried in the government archives. But some experts have managed to piece together the contents of the report. One such person is Neville Maxwell, who has studied the 1962 war in depth. In his article The genesis of the 1962 Sino-Indian War, he gave us an insight of the war. In his article he wrote,  "Indians will be shocked to discover that, when China crushed India in 1962, the fault lay at India, or more specifically, at Jawaharlal Nehru and his clique's doorsteps. It was a hopelessly ill-prepared Indian Army that provoked China on orders emanating from Delhi, and paid the price for its misadventure in men, money and national humiliation."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xingdong (talk • contribs) 20:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Henderson-Brooks-Bhagat report was commissioned by the Indian government. Of course it is part of the "Indian official history". To be objective you can not pick and choose only items you want. 67.55.16.222 (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)CC
 * If even Indian government thinks the "Herderson Report", produced by Indians, is not favourable to India, one can ponder a real objective report would be the thing Indians don't want to see the most. Xingdong (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My dear Dingdong... the Henderson-Brooks report is available online. Do you, by any way, have any history of the Tiananmen Massacre online? That will help all of us to understand the underlying mindset of ... (I have purposefully not replaced the dots with words!). Thanks. Shovon (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My dear Shovon... if you have Henderson-Brooks report online, please provide the link and share it with us. Everyone in this forum wants to see it. :) Xingdong (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This entry Sino-indian War is full of unreliable edits and comments from users like Shovon. One typical example is his comment above, he claimed that he has the Henderson-Brooks Report. Xingdong (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We should refrain from calling other names here. Once that is started, the discussion here will degenerate. Let’s keep this respectful. I generally just do not respond to a comment if I don’t think it is worth my consideration.
 * I could not find the HBB report online. There is a site with that name but the content seems to be written by Neville Maxwell.
 * The subject here is the Sino Indian War, not the TianAnMen incident. It is not appropriate to bring it up here. Also it is not a defense of a bad act just because there is a worse act, and we are not comparing the Chinese gov. with the Indian gov.

67.55.16.222 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)CC

It is my personal opinion that the only reason the Henderson report has not been de-classified is that it would soil the lofty image of Nehru in India. Everyone who has read a bit of history knows that India got a bloody nose because of his stupidity. Bringing up the Tiananmen Square massacre is in bad taste. Why piss on peoples' graves? As it is it is not even relevant to the Indo-Sino war. TheBlueKnight (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Implication of that is the fault of the war was on Indian side(perticularly Nehru). Xingdong (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really. The implication of that is that the Nehru dynasty which has governed India for about half of its independent existence would not like its name dragged in mud with elections every 5 years. The damage would be irreparable. Another example (a bit off-topic) is that of Subhash Chandra Bose's disappearance in 1945 and denial of the Prime Minister's Office in as late as 2008 refusing to declassify certain documents. Once again, Nehru is a holy cow in India – he will not be slayed for a while.

Xingdong, the idea is not to lay the blame of war on either side – the idea of wikipedia is to be objective. Patriotism clouds judgment to a large extent.TheBlueKnight (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

TheBlueKnight (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes this is easier said than done. In some cases there are no right or wrong sides, but sometimes there are clearly right and wrong sides. What is important is to know the truth, accept it, LEARN from it, and MOVE ON. There are no perpetual enemies, only perpetual self interests. Arquing who was just provoking and who attacked first is just word game and if some of you don't mind me saying, childish. Nehru's idea of a Hindi Chini axis would consist over 1/3 of the world's population. China and India can accomplish great things together. Is India ready?67.204.43.229 (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)CC

Unreliable citations
There is no citation that works for the Chinese casualties so they must be marked as 'unknown'.

For Indian casualties,the source doesn't even state it. So use this source,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm

It's very reliable and accurately states that Indian casualties are,

Killed  		1,383 Captured		3,968 Missing		       1,696

There is no reliable source for Chinese casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quad108 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The two Chinese POW were well documented by the Indian news media. 67.204.44.177 (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)CC


 * These two so-called "POW" are most likely civilians living or working in the border area taken by Indians. They are not known to any Chinese army units. They should be regarded as hostages taken by India, much like Japanese civilians taken by North Korea in the '60 and '70. Xingdong (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think they were reported in China. The Indian gov. "clarified" that they were not POW but I have not come across any explanation of what they were supposed to be. One report said they were air force officers, but air forces were not used in the war.67.204.43.229 (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)CC

Chinese invasion???
In the lead section, the last paragraph says "The aftermath of the war saw sweeping changes in the Indian military to prepare it for similar conflicts in the future, and placed pressure on Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who was seen as responsible failing to anticipate the Chinese invasion".

The word "invasion" is absolutely wrong statement. The whole article is talking about "Chinese pushed Indians back to the McMahon line, and declared a unilateral cease fire". Any sober mind would agree this was not an invasion. The cited "Time" magazine was issued when the cold war was in its high, and its political objective was obvious. After 46 years, we should sit down and analyse what happened back then, without any political cloud in mind.

I would suggest the last word be changed to "offensive". Agree? Xingdong (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are right – "invasion" doesn't conform to NPOV – please change it to "offensive" if everyone else agrees – I am in agreement. Thanks. TheBlueKnight (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I said somewhere else on these talk pages that I feel this Wikipedia entry is fair, although not as fair as I would have liked. If you read very carefully, the hard facts are all there, you can get a true picture. However it is also clear, at least to me, that the wording and context through out exaggerate the innocence on the Indian side. When I first read this entry in early January 2009, someone had already added the Sept. 2008 British apology to China. I assume that this entry is mostly contributed by Indian nationals and I understand their feeling. I would like to commend them for perhaps just bending and not hiding the truth. Then of course any improvement is welcome. 69.171.152.88 (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)CC