Talk:Sino-Indian War/Archive 8

Wrong Citation
The first point to consider is if the Rediff article is itself based on any original source material such as India Office Records or Foreign Office documents of the British Indian administration for the period 1900 to 1947 and then decide whether "Re-occupation" or "invasion" is the right word. As these original reports and records of that time show up, over this period, Tibet was for all practical purposes independent, with their own National Assembly and central and provincial government, and entered into treaties, sent official delegations to international conferences, etc. Even during the Machu Imperial regime of the 18th to mid 19th century, China only had an Imperial Representative or the Amban in Lhasa (with an escort of 1000 soldires at Lhasa. That was it. In these circumstances, "invasion" seems a more approriate word to use, as China had at no stage in between "occupied" Tibet in the commonly accepted sense.Pidiji (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation
It does seem true that the article itself requires very substantial revision and that citations need solid back up with quotes. However, citing newspaper articles may require more careful handling unless they specifically quote some accepted authorities or any official note or report.One interesting reference that may be cited is "Himalyan Battleground"by Margaret Fisher, L.E. Rose and R,A, Huttenback of the Institute of International Studies, Berkeley, California that makes the interesting proposition that China made the thrust across the MacMahon Line in the then North Eastern Frontier Agency of India so as to create the ground for opening negotiations with India to settle the status of the road they had built across Aksai Chin linking Sinkiang with Tibet. Please also keep in mind that China and Soviet Russia have long had their own differences over the Sino-Russian border in Sinkiang.Pidiji (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sino Indian War
Conflicts and wars are usually fought at the battalion and company levels, or even at platoon level, while a brigade or division level force may be in immediate reserve. It is strange that Calvin's book is mentioned, as it is a secondary source but not the two definitive texts - one by Brig. J.P. Dalvi who was physically at Tawang and Sela La Pass in October 1962 and the other by Lt. Gen. B.M. Kaul who was the Corps commander in NEFA at the time. It would be interesting to know if any Chinese battalion commander has had any work pubished in Cinese or English on personal experiences in the 1962 conflict.Pidiji (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, wars are always fought at smaller units, but that is different concept. For Chinese the Sino-Indian War (or China India border conflict as they called) was really a small scale war.


 * There are some memoirs or works from chinese who were involved in the war, but they are in chinese and you don't know how to read them.


 * In general I don't cite resources from either Indian or Chinese side for well-known reasons. They usually end up in heroism, one example is what Kaul wrote. Xingdong (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sino-Indian war
Looks like we have a diehard Chinese patriot here in the form of one Mr. Dingdong and Pindiji’s precise points have left him ruffled! Patriotism is a heady cocktail and even the most serene can be befuddled by it. I don’t know how much representative is he of the Chinese people. But even if one were to presume that just one percent of the Chinese are of his kind, the rest of the world is going to have a major problem for the simple fact that they are to be the next superpower. Uncle Sam might be put to shame. I am not aware of his antecedents or credentials, but going by his very lopsided views and arguments, he is an ignoramus as far as matters relating to India are considered. Take for examples his views regarding the annexation of Goa which he deems expansionist. Is he aware of the fact that there were local agitations in Goa by the natives demanding their freedom and the subsequent merger with the Indian union? In fact the Portuguese conquest and rule of Goa was one of the most violent episodes of colonial oppression in pre-Independent India with tens of thousands being massacred and displaced and forcibly converted. There is and can be no moral equivalence between the Goa annexation and the very violent takeover of Tibet by the Chinese where even a single pro-Chinese march by the Tibetans is unheard of, before or after. I am not sure if he has been able to convince anyone other than himself about the validity of Chinese claims over Tibet. He accuses Nehru of being cahoots with the CIA when he very well knows that no nation’s intelligence agency requires an official permit to work in another country. I am sure your intelligence agency is very active in just as many countries as the CIA over therein your own backyard. By all accounts, Nehru or India didn’t have any territorial ambitions over Tibet. Had he, he would have beefed up the Indian military considerably. What he did was to send small army units as a scouting mission to buttress the Indian claims on the territory that he and the people of India considered as their own(rightly or wrongly-it is subjective). The Chinese did jump him from behind as they were the ones who fired the first shots. Who was the real aggressor there and who was the victim? The Chinese may have won a military victory, but it was a shallow victory since they lost the friendship of a sizeable mass of people for good, who are now a force to be reckoned in their own right. In this sense wasn’t the Chinese action of 1962 really a big blunder? Couldn’t they have sorted out the problem in a different way? It made enemies out of a people who had coexisted with them for eons and had considered themselves as their brethren.

(Mksuraj (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC))'''

Xingdong is entitled to his views, just as anyone else is. I just have a problem with personal opinions conveniently becoming facts. Let's be honest - we have no access to the Chinese media and what they teach there. It is conceivable that what he states on this talk page is readily accepted at face value there. Poor Nehru - whom I personally don't admire too much - is painted as some kind of monstrous villain. He actually negotiated with the Portuguese from 1947 to 1962 on the Goa issue! And he could have finished it off in 48 hours flat. Britain was proud of having left India as the finest fighting force in Asia - under Nehru there was absolutely no upgradation of military hardware. To call him an invader is akin to calling Hitler a Jew-lover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueKnight (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Is everyone entitled his or her views- even if the views are patently incorrect or grievously extreme? If you think about it, even the terrorists have their own points of view. So did the Nazis. Some of the worst atrocities and horrors of history like the holocaust happened because some people had certain views and they were allowed to disseminate their views freely without any restriction or challenge. Hence I think it is extremely important to bring out fully the stupidity and the fallacy of those people who are espousing such untenable propositions.

It is learnt that the Chinese have settled their border disputes with all their neighbours except India. I wonder what the reason for the logjam in Sino-Indian border talks is. Is it such a vexed issue or is India is being too stubborn?

My own reading is that this is due to the Chinese perception of India as a weak power which one day may crumble under the weight of its own internal problems and insurgencies like the erstwhile Soviet Union or Yugoslavia. Such a scenario will be the most advantageous to them since they will be dealing with what is left of India, possibly many smaller entities which will be in no position to stand up to China which by all projections would have become a superpower by then. Why cash in your chips now if you can make a killing later? The clever Chinese are certainly hedging their bets. But no one can be fully sure how the wheels of history turn and what tomorrow brings. India might turn the tables on the Chinese. The Chinese should probably know the proverb-‘A bird in hand is worth more than two in the bush.’

(Mksuraj (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC))

Taking a more sober and realistic view of things, as an Indian citizen I do not think it is not in our national interest to have an antagonistic or inimical relationship with our northernmost neighbour. Another conflict on the lines of the 1962 war will be devastating particularly to India. The military and economic disparity between the two countries has only widened with the passage of time since 1962. For all the platitudes and political niceties of the present day, the Americans and the west won’t be of any help to us in such an eventuality and are sure to adopt a position of strategic neutrality and look the other way since they have greater stakes in China. And most significantly, we are not a people like the heroic and gritty Vietnamese who could dig their heels in and fight to the bitter end, thus humiliating one superpower and beating back another one. Centuries of repeated foreign invasions and conquests could do terrible things to the psyche of a people. It can enfeeble them and emaciate their spirit. Beneath all the bluster and bravado, we are all real softies-so were our forefathers and so will be our progeny. Had that been not the case, I am sure we would have sorted out the ‘Pakistan problem’ a long time ago.

The best scenario for both the nations will be to resolve the border dispute peacefully in a time bound manner through constructive discussions. It cannot be allowed to fester on keeping alive the chances of a possible flare up. If the Chinese truly believe that they are the proud inheritors of a great civilization and a rising superpower, they should be more accommodating and magnanimous in their dealings vis a vis India. It does not behove of a pragmatic people like the Chinese to be stuck in frozen positions which are not reflective of current realities. Borders are not cast in stone and there are no hard and fast rules to define them. They are created by men influenced by many historic, geographic, linguistic, communal, racial and economic factors. One condition which may be right in one particular set of circumstances or time for some nations need not be right in another set of circumstance or time for other nations.The need of the hour is to find an amicable settlement striking the right balance and taking into confidence all the parties directly affected by it.

(Mksuraj (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

Sino Indian War - citations
It does seem that the main article is biased. It would be nice if it can be wholly re-cast drawing upon Chinese and Indian as well as other sources like the British, Tibetan, Russian - if possible. It would be interesting to get even an authenticated summary of what Chinese original records show up between a vital period of 1900 to 1950. Incidentally Alastair Lamb (unlike Calvin and Maxwell - both relying on secondary sources) did not write at all on the Sino Indian War, as mentioned in a recent mail. He has published definitive research documents on the historical background to the conflict as per British Indian,Indian,Chinese and Tibetan source documents. After all, this conflict was not just like taking candy from a child.Pidiji (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sino-Indian relations
Taking a more sober and realistic view of things, as an Indian citizen I do not think it is not in our national interest to have an antagonistic or inimical relationship with our northernmost neighbour. Another conflict on the lines of the 1962 war will be devastating particularly to India. The military and economic disparity between the two countries has only widened with the passage of time since 1962. For all the platitudes and political niceties of the present day, the Americans and the west won’t be of any help to us and are sure to adopt a position of strategic neutrality and look the other way since they have greater stakes in China. And most significantly, we are not a people like the heroic and gritty Vietnamese who could dig their heels in and fight to the bitter end, thus humiliating one superpower and beating back another one. Centuries of repeated foreign invasions and conquests could do terrible things to the psyche of a people. It can enfeeble them and emaciate their spirit. Beneath all the bluster and bravado, we are all real softies-so were our forefathers and so will be our progenies. Had that been not the case, I am sure we would have sorted out the ‘Pakistan problem’ a long time ago.

The best scenario for both the nations will be to resolve the border dispute peacefully in a time bound manner through constructive discussions. It cannot be allowed to fester on keeping alive the chances of a possible flare up. If the Chinese truly believe that they are the proud inheritors of a great civilization and a rising superpower, they should be more accommodating and magnanimous in their dealings vis a vis India. It does not behove of a pragmatic people like the Chinese to be stuck in frozen positions which are not reflective of current realities. Borders are not cast in stones and there are no hard and fast rules to define them. They are created by men influenced by many historic, geographic, linguistic, communal, racial and economic factors. One condition which may be right in one particular set of circumstances or time for some nations need not be right in another set of circumstance or time for other nations.

(Mksuraj (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC))


 * This is not a soapbox - please stick to the article. TheBlueKnight (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Talk Page is a soap box. He's sticking to the article, no worries. Qwrk (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sino Indian War
Since the war arose because of dispute about the border between India and what China claimed was the Tibet Autonomous Region, it comes down what was historically (or by treaty) the border between India and Tibet over the previous two centuries and more, and what was Tibet's status as an autonomous or an independent country over this period. As books by Charles Bell, Teichman, Gould and others show, Tibet largely retained her autonomous or her independent status and her relationship since the time of the Mongol emperors (who conquered China in the 13th century) and later with the Manchu Emperors (who also conquered China from the north east) was that of "Priest-Patron". All that had come unravelled since the early 19th century because the Manchu Empire went into decline and became ineffective, and Tibet was able to assert her independence more and more, resulting in the Declaration of Independence by the 13th Dalai Lama on 13th December 1913. This led up to the Simla Convention when the Tibetan and Indian border was finalised between the British and Tibetan Plenipotentiaries in July 1914. At that time, on 6th July 1914, the Chinese Foreign Ministry (Wai Chiao-pu) informed the British Minister in Peking that it was the problem with the Sino-Tibetan border (i.e. the Chamdo-Batang-Tachienlu area) that stood in the way agreement. Thus the Macmahon Line was not the issue between China, Tibet and the then British india. And the Aksai Chin border was a matter of custom and tradition of trading and grazing routes and even formal agreements ebtween the Maharaja of Kashmir (who ruled the Ladakh and Aksai Chin Region) and Tibet.Pidiji (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Xingdong
I notice User:Xingdong has been carrying out multiple disruptive edits on this article, and then threatening other users for reverting his unsourced and nonsensical edits. I'm watchlisting this article and within the next few days I'll be removing the edits by pro-Chinese editors which will get this article back to a more NPOV. Any further radical changes should be discussed here. Aditya Ex Machina 09:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Aditya, I guess to you anything you don't agree is called "disruptive"? Xingdong (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, but certainly is. Anyway, since you've stopped editing this article I'll work on it later. Very busy right now.  Aditya Ex Machina  22:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Aditya, since you brought up this issue, let's clear this up.


 * Qwrk did something wrong by reverting an edit based on a blocked user's claim. This is violation of Wikipedia's policies and I reverted his edit. There is no dispute about this -- Mr./Ms. Qwrk admits that on my talk page.


 * Whether the previous user's addition to this entry is valid or not should be subject to discussion -- this is what this talk page is for.


 * Remember, this is all about following the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, nothing about your POV or my POV. Xingdong (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year and Happy Editing!
Welcome back from holidays! Happy New Year and Happy Editing to my fellow Wikipedians. Xingdong (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Xingdong. Good to see you back, and I'm sincerely hoping we have a constructive year with quality edits, this year. Qwrk (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Timing of War and Cuban crisis
I think it would be a good idea to add details to show that the Chineese actually followed the Cuban crisis and started attacking.

[Quote - Sify] Sample this: the first serious clash in Namkachu valley at Dhola took place on September 11, 1962, the day the US called up all reservists.

The actual attacks on India took place on October 20, the day the US enforced the Naval blockade of Cuba. The Cuban crisis finally ended on November 20, 1962. The very next day the Chinese declared a unilateral ceasefire and pledged to withdraw its troops from India.

On November 19, Nehru had sent a telegram to the US President asking for air support. Four Squadrons of fighter bombers based in Philippines were placed on alert. Also around 300 transport planes and 14,000 men (about a division) were placed on 48 hours notice. (Kennedy archives NLK 94.83, declassified in 1997). But as the news of Chinese cease fire came in, US defence secretary Robert McNamara asked them to stand down at 10 am (US Eastern Time) on 21 November 1962. [End Quote]

[Sify News - http://sify.com/news/column-tharoor-nehru-and-china-news-columns-kbnq2yccecb.html ]

I think it is appropriate to integrate this to the article. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight177 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You've got to be kidding us if you say "Anil Athale" and "Sify" are trustworthy. Adding their comments in will in fact mess up things. 173.32.29.177 (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Timing of the War
Factoring in the Cuban crisis in the timing of the Sino-Indian border conflict would certainly be useful, as well as the prompt response of President Kennedy in rpoviding logistic support to India at the time. It should also be borne in mind that Soviet Russia had its own problems with China on the Sinkiang border and was therefore unlikely to let China have the upper hand.Pidiji (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Timing orf War
The Sino-Indian border war was just that - an armed conflict over a disputed border. But the timing of it by China has been thought by several observers as being influenced by the pre-occupation of USA and Soviet Russia in the Cuban missile crisis, when they were unlikely to intervene in the course of the border conflict. So its commencement and cesefire more or less timed with that of the Cuban crisis. The motivation and object of the border war were of course quite something else.Pidiji (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The disputed territory was of no value to China and Mao cared nothing about it. He was always engineering an international crisis to strengthen his authority domestically. Why was it India's turn in 1962? Mao was mad at Nehru because he gave the Dalai Lama asylum back in 1959. The Russians were scheduled to deliver high-altitude bombers to India, so 1962 represented China's last opportunity to strike with impunity. We know the Chinese military took several years to prepared its offensive, so the cause of the war could not have been either the clash in Dhola or the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kauffner (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indo-China War of 1962
Indo-China War of 1962

The Chinese have two major claims on what India deems its own territory. One claim, in the western sector, is on Aksai Chin in the northeastern section of Ladakh District in Jammu and Kashmir. The other claim is in the eastern sector over a region included in the British-designated North-East Frontier Agency, the disputed part of which India renamed Arunachal Pradesh and made a state. In the fight over these areas, the well-trained and well-armed troops of the Chinese People's Liberation Army overpowered the ill-equipped Indian troops, who had not been properly acclimatized to fighting at high altitudes.

After its independence in 1947, India not only inherited Britain's occupation of parts of Chinese territories, but also further encroached northward and pushed its borderline to the McMahon Line in 1953, as a result, invaded and occupied 90,000 square kms of Chinese territories. At western sector, in 1959, India voiced its claim to the Aksai Chin areas, counted 33,000 s.kms, of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China. In April 1960, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai went to New Delhi to hold talks with Indian Prime Minister Nehru, no agreements were reached due to India's insistence on its unreasonable stand. The ensuing meetings between the officials of the two countries also produced no results.

Unable to reach political accommodation on disputed territory along the 3,225-kilometer-long Himalayan border, the Chinese attacked India on October 20, 1962. At the time, nine divisions from the eastern and western commands were deployed along the Himalayan border with China. None of these divisions was up to its full troop strength, and all were short of artillery, tanks, equipment, and even adequate articles of clothing.

Indian decisions taken at that time were not grounded in adequate, up-to-date, knowledge of what was transpiring within China or the motivations of China’s then key decision-makers. Stated briefly, New Delhi failed to decipher the “Chinese calculus of deterrence” and India suffered disproportionately.

Retrieved from globalsecurity.org, Feb 09,2010 173.32.29.177 (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indo-China War of 1962
Indo-China War of 1962 (cont'd)

In Ladakh the Chinese attacked south of the Karakoram Pass at the northwest end of the Aksai Chin Plateau and in the Pangong Lake area about 160 kilometers to the southeast. The defending Indian forces were easily ejected from their posts in the area of the Karakoram Pass and from most posts near Pangong Lake. However, they put up spirited resistance at the key posts of Daulat Beg Oldi (near the entrance to the pass) and Chushul (located immediately south of Pangong Lake and at the head of the vital supply road to Leh, a major town and location of an air force base in Ladakh). Other Chinese forces attacked near Demchok (about 160 kilometers southeast of Chusul) and rapidly overran the Demchok and the Jara La posts.

In the eastern sector, in Assam, the Chinese forces advanced easily despite Indian efforts at resistance. On the first day of the fighting, Indian forces stationed at the Tsang Le post on the northern side of the Namka Chu, the Khinzemane post, and near Dhola were overrun. On the western side of the North-East Frontier Agency, Tsang Dar fell on October 22, Bum La on October 23, and Tawang, the headquarters of the Seventh Infantry Brigade, on October 24. The Chinese made an offer to negotiate on October 24. The Indian government promptly rejected this offer.

With a lull in the fighting, the Indian military desperately sought to regroup its forces. Specifically, the army attempted to strengthen its defensive positions in the North-East Frontier Agency and Ladakh and to prepare against possible Chinese attacks through Sikkim and Bhutan. Army units were moved from Calcutta, Bihar, Nagaland, and Punjab to guard the northern frontiers of West Bengal and Assam. Three brigades were hastily positioned in the western part of the North-East Frontier Agency, and two other brigades were moved into Sikkim and near the West Bengal border with Bhutan to face the Chinese. Light Stuart tanks were drawn from the Eastern Command headquarters at Calcutta to bolster these deployments

Retrieved from GlobalSecurity.org, February 15, 2010 173.32.29.177 (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Indo-China War 1962
First-hand reports on the War by J.P. Dalvi ("Himalayan Blunder"), B.M. Kaul (The Untold Story" and S.R. Johri ("Chinese Invasion of NEFA") make it clear that India was quite unprepared for the scale of the War - it was prepparing more for defensive action at the border rather than for full scale war. India lacked proper intelligence appreciation of the scale in which the Chinese thrust would take place. Yes, the Cghinese easily pushed in at the Dhola/Thag-La/Sel-La sector, but it was much more difficult in the Along area (mid Macmahon Line)of NEFA and also at Daulat Beg Oldi and Chushul in Aksai Chin. But what was the whole object and purpose of this war for China? Because over 48 years (till date - February 2010)China has not breached the Macmahon Line. It is merely holding on to the road it has built over a portion of Aksai Chin between Sinkiang and western Tibet. If this was the limited objective, surely this could have been negotiated with India in the 1950s? And of course China is quite capably holding on to Tibet itself - so far.Pidiji (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Indo-China War of 1962
In light of some people trying to push their POV, I am going to post a few articles from reliable sources. None of them is from either Chinese or Indian side. 173.32.29.177 (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Indo-China War of 1962
In the western sector, a divisional organization was established in Leh; several battalions of infantry, a battery of twenty-five-pounder guns, and two troops of AMX light tanks were airlifted into the Chushul area from Punjab. On November 4, the Indian military decided that the post at Daulat Beg Oldi was untenable, and its defenders were withdrawn over the 5,300-meter-high Sasar Brangsa Pass to a more defensible position.

The reinforcements and redeployments in Ladakh proved sufficient to defend the Chushul perimeter despite repeated Chinese attacks. However, the more remote posts at Rezang La and Gurung Hill and the four posts at Spanggur Lake area fell to the Chinese.

In the North-East Frontier Agency, the situation proved to be quite different. Indian forces counterattacked on November 13 and captured a hill northwest of the town of Walong. Concerted Chinese attacks dislodged them from this hard-won position, and the nearby garrison had to retreat down the Lohit Valley.

Retrieved from Globalsecurity.org, February 18, 2010 173.32.29.177 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Cold War
Please, could someone tell me if this conflict may be included in the Cold War main strategies, or was it "just" a nacionalist/terriorialist conflict? Did EUA and USSR influence activelly the results of the war? Thanks. --189.62.106.209 (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This war had nothing to do with the Cold War, or Cuban Missile Crisis per se. This war was simply like you stole someone's land, and even wanted to take more, and that person fought back and you got pushed back and a bleedy nose. 173.32.29.177 (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * India was a Soviet ally in 1962, so the war was part of the Sino-Soviet Split. The disputed territory was only a pretext. Mao saw India as behind China's problems in Tibet. The Sino-Indian War is part of the Cold War in the sense that Mao timed the offensive to correspond with the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviet's delayed the delivery of high-altitude bombers to India in order to get China's support with respect to Cuba. Kauffner (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect statement in Info Box removed
Statement in Info Box:

'China controls Tibet (excluding Tawang and area south of McMahon Line) and retains Aksai Chin area (de facto) and India controls North-East Frontier (South Tibet, Arunachal) area (de facto''). '''

is bascially incorrect and has been removed. Xingdong (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Info Box
Is the "Info Box" to be the reflection of the current ground realities on the basis of a general consensus approach of the participants or a platform for any one person or side? It is unfortunate that the Info Box has been so edited on the basis of a one-sided view. May I know what has actually been the ground realities between 1962 and 2010 - that is for the last 48 years? Has India recovered the Aksai Chin area or has China occupied the so-called "south Tibet", that is the Arunachal Pradesh part of India in those 48 years? The "Info Box" duly gave the "de facto" position. The only good thing has been the avoidance of armed conflict in the area so far for all these years.Pidiji (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In "Territorial changes" section in the "Info Box", "No significant territorial change compared with prior to the war." is accurate and good enough to describe the territorial changes.


 * The rest of the satements such as "China controls Tibet..." are not accurate. China's control of Tibet was not due to this 1962 war. Same is true for "India controls North-East Frontier...". The sentences after "... prior to the war" need to be removed.


 * If everyone agrees, I will remove the part mentioned above. Xingdong (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the wording is accurate as it is now and no need to change it. whether you like it or not China does control Tibet.  take your POV somewhere else. Wikireader41 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Info Box
May I suggest that the portion on "Territorial Changes" should read as - "Since the Sino-Indian border war of 1962, China continues to control Tibet and parts of Aksai Chin (de facto)while India retains control over Arunachal Pradesh (formerly NEFA) south of the Macmahon Line and also parts of Aksai Chin (de facto." This will as per the current, de facto position. It needs to be appreciated that this position has held for the last 48 years without any major conflict.Pidiji (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The war was not about Tibet. So, whether China controls it or not, shouldn't be included in the info box on this war. Shovon (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Similarly, a British renunciation of Simla Accord is totally irrelevant here. POV pushing, from both sides should come to an end. Shovon (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Indo-China War of 1962
'who deleted this text ?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.21.218 (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

SNIE 13/31-62 - SHORT-TERM OUTLOOK AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SINO-INDIAN CONFLICT

"....

the CIA report
there has some mention on the CIA "POLO" report. but more information can be seen from this CIA report

http://www.foia.cia.gov/search.asp?pageNumber=4&freqReqRecord=nic%5Fchina%2Etxt&refinedText=undefined&freqSearchText=undefined&txtSearch=undefined&exactPhrase=undefined&allWords=undefined&anyWords=undefined&withoutWords=undefined&documentNumber=undefined&startCreatedMonth=&startCreatedDay=&startCreatedYear=&endCreatedMonth=&endCreatedDay=&endCreatedYear=0&startReleasedMonth=&startReleasedDay=&startReleasedYear=&endReleasedMonth=&endReleasedDay=&endReleasedYear=0&sortOrder=DESC#

"SHORT ERM OUTLOOK AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE SINO-INDIAN CONFLICT"

1.1 "....Increasingly confident of its ability to deal with teh situation, India, in the spring of 1962, set out to establish new forward posts in Ladakh behind Chinese outposts, though in India-claimed territory. While these provoked strong Chinese protests, Peiping's actions in the area were restrained. By mid-summer, however, Indian leaders became extremely concerned that they had overextended tmeselves, and Nehru openly spoke about renewed discussions with the chinese on the border dispute. The outcry in India against this course was so strong, however, that he was in effect forced to abndon any practical steos toward negotiations."

1.2 "In the discussions on the border dispute held between India and communist China during 1960, Peiping had made it reasonably clear that it was prepared to respect - though not recognize - the McMahon Line. Indeed, China had even indicated its willingness to abandon its claims in NEFA if New Dehli would relinguish its claim in Ladakh. to strenghen its position in NEFA, India sent tropops slightly north of the location of the McMahon Line as shown on all but the latest Indian maps. The Indians claimed that the treue location of the line -- which in general follows the Himalayan watershed -- was in fact north of the position on earlier maps."

Info Box
It may appear that the Sino-Indian war was not about Tibet, but about Aksai Chin and the Macmahon Line. But on closer look both Aksai Chin area of Ladakh and the Macmahon Line are about Tibet, and boundaries of Tibet with India by tradition as well as by Treaty/Agreement. So directly or indirectly Tibet, and its political and administrative control by China since 1950, and the boundaries of what China has called the Tibet Autonomous Region, have become involved. The Info Box should reflect the de facto ground realities since 1962 up to date. Pidiji (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How about adding the statement "India still holds New Delhi". This sounds like a correct statement right? or India does not hold New Delhi?


 * 198.96.180.245 (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Copy editing tag
I have added a 'needs copy editing' tag, since the article takes an informal tone, and could use some clarification. I am in the process of addressing this, but I would greatly appreciate other editors' help in this endeavor. Thanks! Dpenn89 (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Need to add materials from the Chinese side (sources) to make the article more objective
Just look at the"Outer line" on 1909 Pre-Simia British map and considering what India was doing at the time... Almost all the accounts on fighting seems to from indian or west sources... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiftian (talk • contribs) 06:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Copy editing tag
This would be useful for, as Dpenn89 on 13/05/10 mentions, the article often has an informal tone, and there is lack of precison in choice of words. For instance in the main article, the first para carries the words "main pretext". Did the Sino-Indian war need a "pretext" or a "reason" or a "cause"? There are many such deficiencies in the main article aside from the need to provide proper historical background of Sino-Tibetan relations and Anglo-Chinese relations in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. There are quite a few books on these topics, as have been referred in some of my notes since 15th October 2009. We should rely on these documented historical facts to improve the main article.Pidiji (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Material from Chinese sources
It would certainly be useful to have information from Chinese sources, as suggested by Leiftian on 13th May.Unfortunately these are not readily available to reserachers. Fortunately there are books by L. Petech and others which have relied on original Chinese and Tibetan texts from which a good idea of the Sino-Tibetan relations in the 18th and 19th centuries (on which the issue of suzereignty/sovereignty rests). A further point for consideration is that reports  from Chinese representatives resident in Tibet at the time to the Chinese emperor had been coloured by what the Emperor would like to hear and know, rather than being a plain statement of facts. It therefore becomes difficult at times to sift fact from fiction from such reports.Pidiji (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please tag this article as disputed !!!
The Chinese military were not really successful.They had to retreat and declare ceasefire.So please at least remove "Chinese military victory" from results and references of Indian defeats.Please tag this article as disputed. Soumbmk (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Soumbmk
 * Is it? At least when I was a student, the Indian history books used to tell us the result of the war as a Chinese victory. Shovon (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Jocular remarks about whether India "holds Delhi" add spice to the article but apparently do not add to our knowledge of the Sino Indian border war. Possibly better knowledge and understanding is what Wikipedia is all about. Pidiji (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone except the Indians recognizes that this was a total Chinese victory, at least tactically. There was no organized Indian military presence at the end of the conflict as all four brigades had been completely crushed.


 * The Chinese decided to withdraw unilaterally because 1). it was facing both a hostile US and a hostile USSR and had to avoid escalation, 2). it was impossible to supply the three divisions for an extended period of time as the disputed territory lies south of the Himalaya ridge. Because of this withdrawal, one can argue that the Chinese failed to achieve strategic victory, but this point is still subject to debate.Duduong (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC).


 * Yes - I do believe the article requires to be protected pending changes.Pidiji (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Attention, Vedant: You are biasing the article on Sino-Indian War
You may not like the mention of the People's Daily article, but, hey, truth hurts. Deleting it does not change the fact. It only biases the Wiki article.

This warning on People's Daily is 1). famous, 2). easily verifiable in major libraries including some in the US, e.g. Harvard's, 3). important because the exact same phrase ("勿谓言之不预") is later used in the official warning against Vietnam a few weeks before the 1979 war. One can reasonably expects a similar warning if China has to go to war again, for example, over South China sea. Duduong (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave the newspapers' name and the date and the page, and you are claiming that this is not enough? What other information do you want?

If you are referring to a formal reference entry, I tried to do it, but every time you reverted it within the two minutes I needed to type. You are obviously watching this page and making (biased) judgment within seconds. Such zealotry can only come from the most biased zealots.Duduong (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is absolute rubbish. You are actually stating that an editorial in a newspaper should be construed as a warning to the precursor to war? Even if the said newspaper is a govt. mouthpiece such a suggestion is downright ridiculous. If newspaper editorials actually served as precursors to war - then India and Pakistan would have been declaring war on each other ever 6 months and some Arab nation or the other would have been declaring war on Israel every week. Diplomatic notes, demarches and other forms of communication can't be substituted with a newspaper editorial! I tend to stay away from this page because it is usually a shouting match with notorious members even getting banned from Wikipedia and I have no intention of getting into silly revert wars. Perhaps it is a cultural thing - but no one in India or indeed the rest of the world is going to buy this newspaper warning nonsense. TheBlueKnight (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is an interesting input from Duduong. Does a warning in People's Daily about the possibility of war substitute for exchanges through proper diplomatic channels? Should any two nations conduct their foreign policy through the columns of a newspaper -except that in PRC a People's Daily news item was possibly elevated to the status of a Foriegn Affairs Ministry official press note? There are international conventions about conduct of diplomatic exchanges and it is a question whether any country feels free to flout such conventions. Would Duduong be interested in a statement on Taiwan by Deng Xiao Ping in 1983 quoted by the Xinhua Press Agency? It makes interesting reading now.Pidiji (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But you haven't heard the best part, first I've been accused of being a biased zealot who "is obviously watching this page and making (biased) judgment within seconds. Such zealotry can only come from the most biased zealots." (See my talk page for more information)


 * Then, Duduong went on a rant on his talk page after the matter was reported to an administrator. The exact quote as follows : " As for subtle POV, they only seem so because most of the English editors of this page are Indians. They have infused this page with a not-too-subtle POV biased against the Chinese over the years. ... You still have not justified how you could kill the quote even after it was put in the correct format. The only excuse is that you believe it to be biased and untrue. But this suspicion of yours is YOUR responsibility to verify or disprove. Just because official Indian history deleted this inconvenient fact does not mean that you have the right to reach a judgment without even a Google search. ... Of course, I may be wasting my breath here. After the debacle of the 1962 war, the Indian government and media, which were both culprits of the war, worked hard to rewrite history to cover their mistakes. Most Indians are raised thinking that the war was "unprovoked" and a "surprise attack". It was anything but. But this English version of Wiki page is dominated by Indian writers who have been brainwashed since birth. It is one of the most biased Wiki page I know. I am too old to hold delusions that a lifelong misconception shared by a large group can be challenged with reasons and facts, however solid they may be. But blatantly censuring such an important piece of history is just too much."


 * Apparently though, I am biasing the article. Vedant (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It just makes me wonder how skewed the Chinese version of this article is. As if China declaring war on Vietnam was more related to a newspaper editorial than cold war oneupsmanship. Newspapers can at best amplify the govt. line of thought and are for domestic consumption not to declare a war weeks before it actually begins.TheBlueKnight (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * TheBlueKnight,Vedant and Pidiji you guys are all wrong. You don't understand how chinese do things. The People's Daily is the country's mouthpiece. If it says so then that means the government is saying so. That's a fact and many foreign diplomats reading that paper to determine what the government says. I don't blame you don't understand -- we have too many things we don't understand in this world, but this is the way they do things. Also, being bias is not good to your health. 99.238.0.71 (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

: Response 1
Thanks for the advice. There have been so may inputs over the last 10 months, was confused.Pidiji (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sino-Indian War: gains/losses
There seem to have been gains and losses on both sides. China gained in ensuring that its strategic road into Tibet (to hold Tibet in a pincer move) via the Aksai Chin in the Ladakh region of India was retained, but it has so far failed in its moves elsewhere. However, China has recently occupied parts of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir also for strategic safeguard of this road. For India the biggest gain was that its eyes were opened to the "real-politik" of the Chinese authorities so that she is not taken in words of brotherhood and amity in lowering her defensive posture.India's loss has been the diversion of huge sums of money to acquire arms and defence capabilities - but this its citizens have come to accept and appreciate as part of the legitimate cost of securing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India.Pidiji (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are contents removed when sources are given
Hi, please explain. This is regarding changes done by me. Thisthat2011 (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ceasefire
It is a pity that Neville Maxwell is being brought in as an authroity on the subject. He wrote on the moves and counter moves on the Sino-Indian border war in October 1962. He did not go deeply into the historical background that built up to the conflict (as has Dr. Alastair Lamb), going back to the Manchu imperial occupation of Tibet in 1770s, wane of Manchu authority since 1850s and rise of auhtority of the Tibetan Dalai Lama, the Simla Conference in 1913 when Mr. Ivan Chan attended as China's Plenipotentiary representative, the military occupation by PRC of Tibet by PRC in 1950 and the building of the road across Aksai Chin, said to be a disputed territory, by China in 1956. A pertinent quastion is whether any nation should unilaterally build a road in a territory itself claims to be disputed or undemarcated territory without any prior diplomatic exhanges.The ceasefire on 20th November 1962 and the unilateral withdrawal by China when she had India on the backfoot is itself a matter of speculation and research.Pidiji (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is pity to you, to the rest of world, his book is absolutely authority on this subject. Highly recommended. 99.238.0.71 (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A book disputed as authority can hardly be highly recommended!Thisthat2011 (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ceasefire
If we are to share information and learn more about the Sino-Indian conflict, we should certainly consider all major source materials on the origins of the conflict. If one considers the references and the primary documentary sources that Maxwell relied on and those that Dr. Alastair Lamb ("British India and Tibet 1766-1910", Routleedge & Kegan Paul, "The Macmahon Line, Vol. I"- also Routeldge) mentions in his books, it does seem a pity to consider only Maxwell and omit consideration of Dr. Lamb's works, besides Amar Kaur Jasbir Singh ("Himalayan Triangle", The British Library), H.E. Richardson ("Tibet and its History", Oxford University Press) or Margaret Fisher, L.E. Rose and R.A. Huttenbach ("Himalayan Battleground", Frederick A. Praeger). One can really learn in the process.Pidiji (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Though I would want to have all sources considered rather than excluding a few.Thisthat2011 (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. Maxwell is openly known to be an Pro-China writer. He declared in 1967 that it will be 'last election in India' and 'democracy will collapse'. No unbiased and open minded writer would ever write something in this kind of language and that too, so wildly inaccurate. Swift&amp;silent (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Strength
China's strength in both theaters numbers less than a division in total, about 7 regiments(each 1000-1500). So something closer to 8,000 even if you count the support units in. why would it be listed as 80,000? another exemplary instance of Indian revisionism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzftw (talk • contribs) 02:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath
The Chinese section seems really rather short, and too much weight is given to the view of James Calvin, thus I've marked the section as POV. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

edited text under "Ceasefire" section
the original article as well as this one is very biased and is portraying Indian soldiers as something they were not. Wikipedia should be about facts and not influenced by someone personal inclination towards an event. Stick to the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameerjeff (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

INDO-CHINA WAR 1962

Your Wikipedia aricle is full of lies. India was non-aligned and on her own and she quite erroneously at that time thought no need to arm herself. India had may be 300,000 troops mostly on Pakistani borders with ancient weapons. While China had 4 million troops armed by the then Soviet Union mainly during the Korean War. Yet India may have suffered reverses in the war but the Indian soldier as usual demonstrated his formidable capability. Since China deceived the Soviet Union (and the Russians are always reliable partners) as result in the 1971 Indo-Pak War the Chinese boasted but refused to aid their Pakistani brothers. The Chinese had no Soviet support then. Today the story is different Chinese will surely lose to the Indians in a conventional war while in a nuclear both India and China will suffer severe destruction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.202 (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed the following text: "Toward the end of the war India increased her support for Tibetan refugees and revolutionaries, some of them having settled in India, as they were fighting the same common enemy in the region. The Nehru administration ordered the raising of an elite Indian-trained "Tibetan Armed Force" composed of Tibetan refugees.[45] The CIA had already begun operations in bringing about change in Tibet." To: "Toward the end of the war India increased her support for Tibetan refugees and revolutionaries, some of them having settled in India". Reason:
 * The text referring that China is an enemy of India is not entirely correct. There are differences in certain accounts, but largely, relations are now peaceful.
 * The mention of Indian-trained "Tibetan Armed Force" refers to a citation which points to a non-existent text/link.
 * Mention of CIA's operations lacks citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remo12345 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This article like many states that China started the war but there are other sources like Maxwell Neville's book on the 1962 war and us intelligence reports that it was India that started the war. Why has this being ignored in the article?


 * Because there are too many Indian nationals and/or expats trying to defend their "motherland". Such behaviours are big polutants to Wikipedia. Should not be torelated. 99.238.0.71 (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * People defending motherland are called 'pollutants' by the same who collect all rights for themselves leaving none for others and then occupy territories. Your observations on Indian nationals defending motherland as 'pollutants' are meaningless. I think Chinese nationals are at pains to defend occupation of China not only in Tibet but also on Indian land link Aksai Chin and even more to its west.Thisthat2011 (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for correction of article
The Sino-Indian war of 1962, was for all intent and purposes, an limited war . An limited war, is defined as A war conducted with less than a nation's total resources and restricted in aim to less than total defeat of the enemy.
 * 1- Both nations refrained from using airforces,tanks etc.
 * 2- Only fraction of forces were deployed by both countries. If two most populous nations, with combined population of 2 billion, go to war and defender fields only 10,000 soldiers and total war sees less than 1 lakh soldiers, both sides combined, then it cannot be called an full scale war.
 * 3- Objectives were strictly regional and limited which is an defining characteristic of limited war.
 * 4- Conflict ended within 20 days.
 * 5- No major territorial changes occurred as per article itself.

'opip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.115.130 (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC) I propose and seek consensus for changing it to limited war as it suits perfectly to scope and type of conflict at hand. If you have counter-view then you are welcome to point out how it was an full scale war instead of an limited one.

FOR correcting it to limited war. Swift&amp;silent (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC) FOR limited war.

Background
The main article has notes which may mislead readers and researchers. It would be desireable to take the following points into account when revising the article as has been suggested -- Pidiji (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Location – Aksai Chin lies between Xinjiang region of China to the north, Tibet to the east and south and the state of Jammu and Kashmir of India to the west. The eastern sector of the Sino-Indian border stretches from Bhutan in the east to Burma in the east with Tibet to the north and the state of Arunachal Pradesh of India to the south.
 * 2) Background – The dispute arose not over the issue of “sovereignty” of  Aksai Chin as is claimed, but over the alignment of the border between Tibet and the Aksai chin region of Kashmir, and the northern border of Arunachal Pradesh and Tibet (although China claimed the whole of Arunachal Pradesh was part of its territory while India – and earlier the Ahom kingdom of Assam - had exercised  political and administrative control over this area since long)
 * 3) The Johnson Line – To quote George Patterson that the Indian evidence on the boundary was “dubious” is to overlook entirely the documentation by L. Petech, Dr. Alistair Lamb, Margaret Fisher, Amar Kaur Jasbir Singh and other authorities. Their findings should also be quoted.
 * 4) The Macmahon Line – For about 30 years prior to the Simla Agreement of 1914 there had been wars and skirmishes between Tibet and China on the eastern provinces of Tibet and the Simla Conference was held to settle to borders between Tibet and China. British India, Tibet and China sent ambassadors with plenipotentiary powers for the Simla Conference and a tripartite agreement was initialed and sealed by all three. Within 48 hours China repudiated this Agreement (which was to have settled the Outer Tibet-Inner Tibet boundary between Tibet and China) for reasons best known to them and thus forfeited any right to participate or intervene in the subsequent India-Tibet Agreement on the border (the Macmahon Line). The issue was whether in the preceding 30 years (or for that matter the preceding 50 years) and in 1914 China had exercised any sovereignty or suzerainty over Tibet. For all practical purposes, China had little or no influence on the policies and administration in Tibet in that period.
 * 5) Tibet and the Border Dispute – At least three times between 1870’s and 1914, the British Indian administration tried to get Tibet and China to discuss and settle the boundary and to arrange for its demarcation. These efforts futile. Leaving aside the issue if the Tibetan people wanted “liberation”, the point of note is that from about 1870s till 1951 when the Peoples Republic of China entered Tibet under an Agreement for “Peaceful Liberation” there was peace and tranquility on the Macmahon Line and in Aksai Chin. The problems started since about 1954/55 when China started to build a road from Xinjiang to Tibet through a portion of Aksai Chin without consulting or even informing India in what was an undemarcated  boundary. India’s reasoning fell on deaf ears and China then raised the issue of the Macmahon Line and claimed that the whole of Arunachal Pradesh was within its territory. The rest is history.
 * I think the focus on the border dispute aspect of the war is misdirected. Mao wasn't interested in the Johnson Line or NEFA. This war was one of a series of international crises that he provoked to strengthen his hand domestically. So he didn't need much of a pretext in terms of territory or treaties. The McMahon line issue applied equally to Burma, so why India? Mao had a grudge against Nehru because India had given the Dalai Lama sanctuary in 1959. In July 1962, Washington told Beijing that Taiwan would no longer conduct major military operations against the mainland. So a brief window of opportunity opened for Mao. The timing of the attack was determined by the need to act before India received MiG-21s from Russia. Kauffner (talk) 11:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * About the other states that inherited the McMahon line, China resolved its border issue with Burma in October 1960, and with Nepal one year later, in both cases with China giving up the vast majority of the disputed land. China was also willing to recognize India's control of South Tibet (a bigger and more populous territory) in return for India's recognition of Chinese control in Aksai Chin. There Nehru declined and "the rest is history". Quigley (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * China has accepted the McMahon Line as a "line of actual control" all along. So Zhou was asking India to drop its claim to Aksai Chin in exchange for nothing. Nehru presented a map with the McMahon Line on it to Zhou at the 1954 conference, and there was no objection. In 1956, Zhou stated that China had no claims on Indian-controlled territory. But when the military balance shifted, nothing that had been agreed to earlier mattered to Mao. There were some border incidents in 1959. These convinced Mao that a large-scale offensive was feasible. So when Zhou visited India in 1960 and made his offer, the Chinese army was already preparing for war. Kauffner (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai rumour is uncited and likely wrong
Please read this Indian Express article. It states that Nehru found the hindi chini bhai bhai idea stupid and did not trust the Chinese one bit. ''“So, GP, when has the foreign office told you Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai? Don’t you believe it. I don’t trust the Chinese one bit, despite Panchsheel and all that. The Chinese are arrogant, devious, hypocritical and thoroughly unreliable,” the diary entry says, quoting Nehru during the meeting on March 18, 1958.'' --71.17.188.133 (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Background
The "Talk" has highlighted different points of view about the "Background". The point has been made that China has recognised the McMahon Line between Tibet and the state of Arunachal Pradesh of India (some have in fact named this Indian portion of territory as "South Tibet" - on what basis or authority is unknown)as the Line of Actual Control and in return has sought India's recogniton of China's control over Aksai Chin. The Points for consideration are (a) whether China was able at all to excerise suzerainty over Tibet between 1870 and 1950 - that is to be able to guide, influence or exert any real authority over Tibet's policies and administration in any significant fashion over these 80 years (published historical records do not suggest this) ; (b) if at all China did exercise this suzerainty over Tibet then why the skirmishes and fights between CVhinese and Tibetan forces on the Tibet's eastern borders with China between 1900 and 1918, by which time the Republican Revolution had swept China under Sun-Yat-sen and Yuan-Shih-kai? (c) what is the validity of "plenipotentiary powers" granted to an ambassdor (here, Ambassador Ivan Chen of China) if his givernment repudiates the agreement initialled and sealed as happened at Simla in 1914? (d) whether it was proper diplomatic and friendly practice for China to occupy the territory in Aksai Chin that has been known since about early 19th century (but not demarcated), build a road there to suit its strategic purposes and then to claim a trade-off with reconition of the McMahon Line in return for Indian recognition of "actual control" by China of portions of Aksai Chin? Such a step would be like a "bazaar trade" and not be in accordance with established history, records, practice and customs. Pidiji (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My view is that the pre-1950 stuff should be deleted and that the "Background" section should focus on 1959-1962. The highway issue certainly deserves a mention, but I find the war-for-the-highway theory to be quite a stretch. Now the narrative begins in 1834, which gets us even further afield. Kauffner (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Background
Deleting the pre-1950 stuff is one way to handle this, but it would take the moves by India and China in the post 1950 period out-of-context. Because the claims and counter-claims are rooted in history. It may be more informative to readers to provide reference material from a wider range of sources such as L. Petech (on Tibetan history and its relations with India and China), Dr. Alastair Lamb, Dorothy Woodman, Report on the Officials of India and the Peoples Republic of China February 1961, Charles Bell, K.S. Latourette (Chinese history), The Cambridge History of China, Amar Kaur jasbir Singh and others. It needs to be kept in mind that prior to 1911, China was under an Emperor with its distinctive administrative system, from 1912 to 1940 when China was affected by a number of local war-lords and the invasion by Japan, between 1942 and 1949 when it was an ally in the war against Japanese militarism in the east, and that after 1949, China has been under the Communist Party of China.Pidiji (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Article
There have many sources about the immediate cause of the Sino-Indian cionflict and its immediate fall-out, etc. But fewer sources have been mentioned about the historical background and differences in perception on either side that gradually built up to the conflict. It has been mentioned by some that there are many Western sources, some Indian sources but few Chinese sources cited for the article and the "Talk" section. This may be due to linguistic problem or a politcal or diplomatic problem. The lack of more Chinese sources has been observed and remarked on by several in the "Talk" in the last 2-3 years. Whether such Chinese sources would add anything basically to the present knowledge of the origins and causes of the conflict is a moot point; as they may well be expected unreservedly to put forward the Chinese view-point. But still we may get know their view point better. Lets give it a try! - Pidiji (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How bushfire confuses?
How bushfire created by Chinese Army on the southern banks of Namka Chu river confused Indian Army.

"The Indians tried to use their mortars against the Chinese but the PLA responded by lighting a bushfire, causing confusion amongst the Indians. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by T Kuber (talk • contribs) 16:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Chinese Bias
The article seems to be written by some pro-chinese folks and tells a one sided story and hence grossly incorrect. I wonder how wikipedia is fine with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.43.213 (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I did a quick check on the 74 sources quoted in the article: there are about 40 or so Western sources, 30 or so Indian, and 2 or 3 Chinese sources. How can you tell a one-sided Chinese story with barely any Chinese source?   --Zanhe (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not know how number of sources affects whether or not the article is Chinese biased or not. If you see the article, you will see that the article is mostly pro-Chinese, and often justifies Chinese actions, while failing to do the same to Indian ones. NPOV Tag added. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality
To Zahne - I understand your concerns about me editing the sections in the background. I also agree to the fact that the sources are Western, and have no reason to be biased against India. But, Firstly, being Western is no criterion for being anti-China or pro-India. For all I can see, there is one particular reference that is repeated all the places over and over again (from a certain Calvin, i think). And people can be biased against India or pro China. Regardless of the above fact, let us assume that all sources are neutral. Still, it does not imply that the article text is neutral. I personally made it a point to go through the entire article, and the source from Calvin, as to see whether what is claimed is true. Agreed, that all the facts are undisputed. But they have all been  presented  in such a way that it forms a pro-Chinese bias. All I am trying to do is to remove that bias, and make it neutral. If you have any objections to any of my edits, refer to those specific edits along with proper reasoning as to why it does not form a pro-China bias. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In case you're not aware, this "certain Calvin" is an American Navy commander and his article is published by the US Marine College. There is absolutely no reason to believe he may have a personal bias against India.  And his account of the war is largely consistent with other Western sources including British journalist Neville Maxwell, Australian diplomat Gregory Clark, and the recently declassified secret CIA study.


 * I actually was not aware of that. It is good to learn something new everyday :) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's rarely a good idea to remove well-sourced content on a large scale without seeking consensus first, especially on a controversial topic like this. And instead of reducing bias, you introduced obvious personal bias, for example, by changing the neutral sentence "China took the position that" to "China later claimed that", using the weasel word "claim".  Besides, you removed several sources used elsewhere in the article, causing reference errors.


 * That being said, this article is far from perfect and can certainly be improved. However, when editing an article that is a delicate balance between opposing views, it's helpful to make them in incremental steps (one or two paragraphs at a time) rather than in a big chunk that makes the diff unreadable.  Please also read the Wikipedia NPOV faq before deleting well-sourced facts. -Zanhe (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Point noted. Mind trying to make this article better, or shall we keep deliberating on whether or not it is biased? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
I propose that the given article be merged with the two articles -
 * Sino-Indian border dispute
 * Events leading to the Sino-Indian War

Most of the details given in the aforementioned articles are directly related to this article, and have a lot of redundant details. therefore, the articles should be merged inorder to have a clearer understanding of the topic than have it unnecessarily broken up.

Contrariwise, we can also consider moving the Background section completely into the latter article, and just have a brief explanation on the current article. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why would we not have an articles on this war? It would make more sense to merge the others to here. (Darkness Shines) 16:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is what the suggestion is. To merge the other articles into here (Sorry if my statement was not clear). TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for "Sino-Indian border dispute". Will go with majority opinion for the other case. The dispute is still live and both predates and outlives the conflict. It has different nuances, different material & does not merit merger. AshLin (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for merging "Sino-Indian border dispute" here. It is still active even now with talks between the two countries. Neutral for merging Events leading to the Sino-Indian War over here, primarily because Both in their current form describe the content well.-- D Big X ray  18:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for merging "Sino-Indian border dispute". It's still an ongoing dispute, whereas the war ended 50 years ago.  Conditional support for merging Events leading to the Sino-Indian War: unnecessary to have the separate article, but both articles are quite long already, and lots of details will need to be trimmed and summarized if a merger is to occur. -Zanhe (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed to both the points TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal for Sino-Indian border dispute - Introduction of a brief section on the Sino Indian war to make that article sufficient for a full reading? [By full reading I imply providing enough information to give the reader an acurrate, brief and complete picture of the issue {Complete here referring to having enough information to be aware of all the events regarding the issue}] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per DBigXray  ≫TheStrike   Σagle≪   10:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per DBigXray  (uninvolved editor, randomly invited by RfC bot) --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The border dispute is not just 'part of' the war; it is an issue that has a wider purview that could not be properly written about were it relegated to a section here. The redundancy between events leading up to the war and this page on the war needs sorting, but there is enough good material in the events leading up article to keep it separate. That being said, these articles do need a decent copy-editing for redundancy and conflicting statements. -- Cooper 42(Talk)(Contr) 15:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge with "Sino-Indian border dispute" - with "Events leading to the Sino-Indian War" I am a little mixed - in theory you could merge the material in but the "Events leading to the Sino-Indian War" section in this article is already pretty big and I feel like you would be losing useful info. What may be better is to reduce the "Events leading to the Sino-Indian War" section to just a shorter summary so that "Events leading to the Sino-Indian War" does not have as much repeated material and so that new elaborations on that topic go to the "Events leading to the Sino-Indian War" page and not to this section. Makes sense? Jztinfinity (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This interpretation
"The CIA's recently declassified POLO documents reveal contemporary American analysis of Chinese motives during the war. According to this document, "Chinese apparently were motivated to attack by one primary consideration — their determination to retain the ground on which PLA forces stood in 1962 and to punish the Indians for trying to take that ground". In general terms, they tried to show the Indians once and for all that China would not acquiesce in a military "reoccupation" policy. The secondary reasons for the attack, which had made it desirable but not necessary, included a desire (1) to damage Nehru's prestige by exposing Indian weakness and(2)to expose as traitorous Khrushchev's policy of supporting Nehru against a Communist country."

I don't think you can put in such an interpretation in this way. Probably goes against something. 24.191.68.192 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what it goes against. The entire portion was presented as it was, in the article. If there is any guideline of Wikipedia that it does not follow, please specify the same. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Intro link to PRC
The link to China in the introduction links to the China page. It is more relevant to have it link to the People's Republic of China. Like China. 68.196.225.37 (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Background & Neutrality
I submit that without providing and knowing the Background to the Sino-Indian war, neutrality may not be achieved. The Background can be taken as proximate, say between 1959 and 1962, when Indian and Chinese army patrols came across each other. This is largely what Calvin and Maxwell have provided. To my mind that would be missing the wood for the trees. Why did at all China have to build a road from Western Tibet to Xinjiang and that too through Aksai China where the border, while known by tradition and custom, had not been delineated and demarcated? Then one come to the question as to why that area (and other disputed areas) had not been delineated and demarcated? What were the roles of Tibet, China and India in such failure to demarcate this border and other parts of the Indo-Tibetan border that extends for over 3000 kms.? Some of the references that I have provided earlier, such as Alastair Lamb, Barbara Goodman, L. Petech, Margaret Fisher, Amar Kaur Jasbir Singh shed light on these aspects. I will conclude this note on one more historical fact: Lhoten Shatra, the Tibetan Plenipotentiary at the Simla Conference of 1913-14 (it ran on for about 9 months)provided practically a cart-load of documents on Tibet's eastern border with China(that was the main reason that the Simla Conference was called in the first place) while Mr. Ivan Chen, the Chinese Plenipotentiary, had to telegraph Beijing urgently to provide him with maps and documents to counter Shatra's evidence. It would indeed be interesting to refer the "Backgraound" to scholars such as Alastair Lamb or Amar Kaur Jasbir Singh or Margaret Fisher for their views.Pidiji (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Point noted. Willl try to go through their views, and bring some points forward. After that will be the task of cutting short on unneccessary details. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The 1962 Indo-China war was indecisive.
The 1962 Indo-China war was actually an indecisive war. The article(Sino-Indian War) itself states that "According to James Calvin, an analyst from the U.S. Navy, India gained many benefits from the 1962 conflict. This war united the country as never before. India got 32,000 square miles (8.3 million hectares, 83,000sq.km.) of disputed territory even if she felt that NEFA was hers all along." I don't think that is possible if India really lost the war. I would also like to point out that the Indian troops defended Sela Pass in Arunachal Pradesh valiantly against numerous chinese soldiers, although being outnumbered by many times(according to Retd. General Shankar Roychoudhury). That pass still belongs to India now although china still illegally occupies many Indian territories.
 * I agree that India's casualties had been greater compared to china, but that does not necessarily imply Indian defeat.Also, no aggressor party(in this case china) would unilaterally declare ceasefire if it is really winning the war. Again, china itself does not put any importance to this war even today.
 * Therefore, my suggestion is change the results section on the top right banner to "Indecisive/Inconclusive" and to change/delete any part of it which implies chinese victory from a neutral point of view. Actually, nehru himself suffered more humiliation than the country itself because of his faulty military/foreign policy. So, I would also like to request you to change the sentence-"As a result of the war, the Indian government commissioned an investigation, resulting in the classified Henderson-Brooks-Bhagat Report on the causes of the war and the reasons for failure" to "As a result of the war, the Indian government commissioned an investigation, resulting in the classified Henderson-Brooks-Bhagat Report on the causes of the war and the reasons for failing to achieve complete Indian military victory." and make other suitable changes in any other articles such as Indian/Chinese military history to bring out consistency.
 * The quantity changes would be very small, but it would greatly increase Wikipedia's reputation, accuracy & neutrality. Finding the most correct information in the internet is a very difficult task. From that point of view, Wikipedia is one of the most authentic sources online.
 * I am sure Wikipedia will live up to its reputation.Thanks. Samby82 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC
 * I am reading The Himalayan Blunder by Brig. Dalvi and as per his account it was a decisive victory for China. His 7 Infantry Brigade could not hold Towang, he was taken prisoner and the Chinese moved as far south as Bomdilla in the foothills. Hence, until this time the Chinese were indeed winning. Of course there is no saying what would have happened in the plains, but at the time of ceasefire the Chinese certainly had the upper hand. I too am much intrigued by the fact the Chinese not only declared a unilateral ceasefire but actually withdrew back to the original LOC; that certainly looks like a drawn match, but the combat results point to a series of Chinese victories.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kishorekumar. Many forces have declared unilateral ceasefires when winning a war, such as the US-led coalition in the First Gulf War of 1991.  The US had completely dislodged the Iraqis from Kuwait, routed their divisions, and could have easily marched on Baghdad, but decided to withdraw to pre-war boundaries after accomplishing their limited strategic goals.  Cheers, Lostromantic (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Background and Neutrality
Most wars and armed conflicts find their origins in some corner of history going back,say, a couple of centuries. Therefore unless one brings to bear the facts and circumstances of history to try and understand the Sino-Indian border conflict (the term "war" is better avoided because India certainly did not declare any war)of 1962, that understanding is likely to be partial. In this connection, one is reminded of the Biblical saying that "it is better to remove the beam from one's eye before attempting to remove the mote from the eye of another". As recently as September 2012, the associated topic of "The McMahon Line" on Wikipedia carried the opening sentence that Tibet did not represent the Peoples Republic of China at the Simla Conference of 1913-14. How could it, when the PRC itself was formed in October 1949? These inconsistencies and contradictions need to be ironed out in both the articles on the "McMahon Line" and the "Sino-Indian War". There is enough material in the sources and references mentioned earlier (unless China chooses to publish its own Foreign Office documents on the subjects) that provide the historical background and may therefore a better understanding of the subject. It is time - now that 50 years have passed since that conflict in 1962 - to attempt a revision of the Background of the Sino-Indian conflict and the neutrality of the article 116.193.133.111 (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Lack of Battleships at 16,000 feet
Still confused why Sino Indian War notable for non-appearance of either side's navies in the Himalayas. This was not a full-scale war and there are no sea borders between China and India. Their nearest ports to each other are about 3,500 miles sailing distance apart. Ellizzia (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The point made by those lines is that this was a war fought only on land, that too on mountains - something very peculiar in mordern warfare. This war could also have extended out to the sea and involved both the navies. But it weirdly remained confined to those areas only.
 * If you think it can be worded better, or still believe its incorrect, I suggest you go ahead and change it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Change the subtitle "World Opinion" to "West Opinion"
The subtitle 'World Opinion' should be changed to 'West Opinion" because the content you have written only reflected the western opinions, which only represents countable western ally countries. There are 197 countries in the world compared to roughly 20 American allies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captinharry266 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Background and Neutrality
I recently went back to Neville Maxwell's "India's China War" for a re-read. I found the following points of interest -- (a) In a "Preface" and "Historical Introduction" running to 64 pages, there is no mention of of the extension of the Manchu Empire into Tibet in the 18th century or about Chou Erh-feng attacks in 1905-1910 in Eastern Tibet, or about Tibet declaring independence in 1913, although Maxwell had read Margaret Fisher, Dorothy Woodman and Dr. Alastair Lamb (who have all referred to this in their respective books), (b) on page 81 of the book, Maxwell has mentioned that in 1952 that an Indian patrol had been sent up to Lhanak La Pass (in eastern Ladakh) and again in 1954, and on page 85, he notes that the they (Indian patrols) found no Chinese there; (c) on page 124, it is found "He (Chou en-Lai) had greatly exaggerated the extent of Tibetan/Chinese penetration into the tribal belt enveloped by the Macmahon Line (in India's then North East Frontier Agency - parentheses added)..... Apart from the Tawang tract, that had not in fact reached more than a few miles down some of the bigger valleys"; (d) on pages 199/200, Maxwell finds that pickets of the  Western Command of the Indian Army in 1960 were at Murgo, Tsogstsalu, Phobrang, Chushul and Demchok (in eastern Ladakh)while the western-most positions (of the Chinese) were believed to be Qizil Julga, Dobraha, Samzungling, Kongka Pass and Khurnak Fort, and that about twenty to forty miles would have thus separated the two sides in 1961/62. It is also not clear from the text as to which Simla Convention or Agreement that Maxwell is referring to in some passages - there were two Conventions at Simla, one of 27th April 1914 between British India, China and Tibet that was initialled but was repudiated by China on 29th April 1914 (that repudiation is a story by itself) and the Convention of 3rd July 1914 that was signed bilaterally between British India and Tibet. It does seem that a review of the background and the neutrality of the article is called for. Pidiji (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC) I still don't get it that why Indians faced so many casualities while it was pretty much favorable for defense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.44.94 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Background and Neutrality
There were two theaters of the conflict - in Ladakh in the west and in the North Eastern Frontier Agency (now Arunachal Pradesh) in the east of India. In NEFA there were again two basic zones of the conflict - one in West Kameng near Tawang and in the east near Walong. The terrain, which largely impacts any military campaign (from the campaign of Napoleon In Russia to Gen. Rommel's campaign in North Africa, was highly unfavourable to India in NEFA and logistics and provisioning was extremely hazardous. Also the soldiers were not properly trained and equipped at the time to take on the Chinese soldiers in that sector. That led to the higher casualties in the Tawang sector but the defences were much better with far lower casualties in Ladakh and Walong. We have yet to learn from the Chinese about their casualties in Ladakh and NEFA in 1962.Pidiji (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

American involvement
Nowhere in the entry is there mention of American involvement in the war, however America sent 12 C-130's to India to ferry troops up to Leh, in Ladakh. The planes were members of the 317 Troop Carrier Wing of the 322 Air Division that were stationed in Evreux, France. They flew out of Palam Airport in New Delhi. In the early months, the approximately 100 flyers were housed in a government guesthouse, moving subsequently to the Ashoka Hotel. The first flight to Leh carried portable runway which was used to build a landing strip after the plane endured a "controlled crash landing" on an unprepared landing strip. That plane was disabled and it took several months to repair it for flight. This seems to be an undocumented participation by the U.S. in this war but I can attest to it inasmuch as I was there as an enlisted medical technician in support of the mission.4.26.24.74 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Good to hear from someone with firsthand experience in the war. You're free to add the information to the article if you can find neutral, reliable sources to support your statement (but personal experience doesn't count). -Zanhe (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot that the page is semi-protected and cannot be edited by IP's. You'll need to submit an edit request if you want to edit the page. -Zanhe (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)