China and India relationship

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Now think slightly more strategically. Why does China continue to claim AP? Simply because AC (Aksai Chin) is still formally claimed by India.

If India gives up claiming AC formally and buffer zone of 20% is established (being negotiated for) then China feels AC is finally 100% secured because India has no legal and formal claim on it anymore and Indian troops will not set foot to land that is even adjacent to AC. Which means there will be a buffer zone between India proper and AC (China) in that Ladakh stretch.

Since India has not dropped claims on AC, it would be unwise for China to drop claims on AP. In fact, the more India escalates drama on AC, the more China will escalate drama on AP.

Now that's been the play since the 1960s and at least up until the 2000s.

Since then, there is gotta be some shift in Chinese thinking because the more India and China move towards becoming adversarial, the more China needs to re-evaluate offensive and defensive strategic positions. That could include preventing India from stationing weapons on AP and militarising that "disputed" land. Note that disputed has been to serve negotiation/bargaining interests in the past and still useful until AC dispute is finally completed.

If India militarises AP to a serious degree (beyond one or two military installations) then I think China would actually escalate this dispute which in history has never been a genuine one. Doing so just to prevent India from militarising the area. By militarising I don't mean an invasive land force because Himalayas but by placing Indian SRBM and MRBM even IRBM onto this piece of land. Of course the 30km or whatever difference doesn't make much but it could potentially bother the Chinese. Just depends how they read into it and how much military concern for it there really is. Just some food for thought that's all.
 
T

twineedle

Junior Member
Registered Member
ougoah said:
You do not take everything away from a cornered dog. Particularly when it is being led by a moron. Making India's could be 0% into an actual 0% result is going to justify India opening fire and that is only a waste of time and resources for China. China isn't aiming to wrestle in the dirt with the bottom of the barrel. It has its sights on finishing development which it is only around half way through. It needed to stop Indian increased patrols and mirror build up and it's achieved that - India no longer patrols Pangong or Galwan at all and building up has stopped. China still builds up in Aksai Chin and reinforces nearby bases. That's enough to stop India from considering war.
Click to expand...
India still has patrols and buildup in Galwan. The buffer zone is only a small area, though the entire valley is part of the remaining dispute.
 
Last edited:
T

twineedle

Junior Member
Registered Member
ougoah said:
Edit part: First to properly answer your question of why it's under Indian control, it has always been under Indian control since independence because tldr AP has only ever been claimed by China to get the Indians to release their claim on Aksai Chin during the 1960s war and still kept as a claim by China since India still keeps Aksai Chin on claim. That's all. AP has never been a part of Tibet or China.

Some people (Indians and either misinformed Chinese and Tibetans or ultra nationalistic Chinese) define parts of India as "south Tibet". There is only Arunachal Pradesh and surrounding areas that are a disputed land. It is difficult to say whether they are Indian or Chinese (i.e. Tibetan = Chinese) or other like Nepal Bhutan etc because this region's history has always been a middle ground kingdom but one that was never a part of China. So... what's left for China's "claim" is really just the geography.

On Ladakh side of Tibet/Xinjiang, China has managed to secure 80% of the legacy dispute and convert nearly 20% of it from being increasingly traveled by Indian soldiers to being a buffer zone between India proper and Aksai Chin (the 80%). India on the other hand has managed to secure 0% of this legacy dispute. Therefore the "need" for PLA pushing forwards is entirely absent since India controls 0% of it although remains with presence on some parts of that 20% that has yet to be converted into an agreed buffer like other parts of the 20% (Pangong lake surrounds and Galwan/hot springs/gogra)

On Arunachal Pradesh, it is the only major piece of land that is "part of Tibet" that remains in Indian control. Let me show you Tibet on a map and you can see for yourself how much of it is China and how much of it is India.

View attachment 77126

This yellow part (AP) is the "south Tibet" you are referring to?

Red is Chinese Tibet and yellow is Indian Tibet. Aksai Chin is Chinese, green is now buffer or negotiating to become buffer. India has one permanent military installation in AP (yellow) within it as far as I'm aware, that being Tawang Air Base at the left most section of AP.

Personally I do not consider AP to be a part of Tibet at all. It was the current Dalai Lama who suddenly claimed AP as being part of Tibet back in the early 2000s which re-sparked this idea of AP being a part of Tibet. Tibet has the borders of the Himalayas and the only break in this is AP? Yeah, no. AP is more "Indian" indeed.

The Himalayan ranges form a naturally border. I do not believe this area of the world has ever truly been a part of Tibet despite obvious cultural exchanges and flows. That does not constitute sovereignty. This region has always been like Nepal and Bhutan, an obvious middle ground but India is a big collection of old and VERY separate kingdoms forced together by the Mughals and then by the British in various forms. Therefore the blurred lines.

If you look at history, China's aim was always Aksai Chin. During the first border disputes when the British left India and failed to properly demarcate or demarcated along lines that were highly contentious, China constantly claimed Arunachal Pradesh just so it can "swap" it for Aksai Chin. It offered to drop claims on AP in exchange for India giving China Aksai Chin.

The issue with this (from India's POV) is that India always controlled AP and it was always a part of British India land governed by the Raj. China merely said if you don't agree that Aksai Chin actually is Tibet/Xinjiang, then I will claim AP but now I'll offer to drop the claim if you grant Aksai Chin. Aksai Chin was always the main focus because it was the one that the Brits granted to India which China didn't agree with. China couldn't have cared less for AP back in those days.

Now with Dalai Lama claiming that AP is Tibet, China suddenly has "greater reason" to claim it. This would be dependent on strategic thinking inside China. Whether or not they consider AP to be a threat to China if India militarises the land. It is far closer to Chinese population centres than Aksai Chin but for some reason considered to be far less strategically valuable, even going back as far as the 1960s.

Of course the Chinese truly regard Aksai China as China and they have extremely good reasons for, even arguably better than Indian ones. As for AP, personally I think India has much better reasons and the idea that AP was and is part of Tibet really fails the smell test.

How on earth can AP be part of Tibet if it is beyond the Himalayan ranges and the border from Xinjiang/Tibet/Ladakh start of Himalayan ranges and to this point of AP, is part of the southern nations. AP has served as negotiation tool back in the 1960s for China and it has shown no desire to really make the dispute escalate for AP despite Dalai Lama claiming it in 2003. Since then, there's been nowhere near as much drama as Ladakh has. Why? Because of BRI CPEC etc but mainly because Aksai Chin actually is part of Tibet/Xinjiang, quite unlike AP.
Click to expand...
The sixth Dalai Lama was born in what is now AP(specifically Tawang) hence its importance to Tibet.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
twineedle said:
India still has patrols and buildup in Galwan. The buffer zone is only a small area, though the entire valley is part of the remaining dispute.
Click to expand...

Both sides have presence within 20%.

My point was to say that India has won exactly 0% of the legacy dispute.

China has solidified its hold on Aksai Chin and shown India that it will not allow India to take the 20%.

Since both sides were within the 20% when the stand-off was at its height, it has since become only de-escalated and to the result of buffer. That's been the direction. I doubt India would agree to the rest becoming buffer since it creates a total seal off for Aksai Chin to India. This is what China is no doubt negotiating for but India has continued refusing total mutual withdrawal off the 20%.

twineedle said:
The sixth Dalai Lama was born in what is now AP(specifically Tawang) hence its importance to Tibet.
Click to expand...

The amount of state permitted tolerance for self-declared magic men is agreeable for Indian gov but very anti-thesis to CCP. Again I personally consider AP to be thoroughly Indian and history of CCP actions seem to indicate they genuinely agree with this deep down since they seem to have only ever brought up AP in the 1960s as a means of bargaining with India on what they truly consider a part of China and strategically important (for whatever reasons) - AC.

Where self appointed (and I should include culturally too!) "god-men" are born really shouldn't matter to secular states should it?

My reasons for AP being India is because AP is past the Himalayan mountain ranges separating Tibet and Nepal, Bhutan, and India.

At no point along this border from J&K/Ladakh/Xinjiang/ west most Tibet to Assam (India) is there ever a place where Tibet's land goes beyond the Himalayan mountains. It also doesn't make sense for it to in history or settlement of tribes.

Combine that with China clearly only ever having claimed AP to bargain with India (since China considers India's claim on AC as empty as China's on AP therefore what a perfect swap in the minds of the previous CCP leaders of that generation). It continues today. I bet if India formally retracts AC claim and buffer zones are set up between Aksai Chin and India, China would formally retract AP claim.

Where some monk is born is second to state matters but this is a subjective topic.

I mean one can still carry firm beliefs/faiths and prioritise them first but it should never be a matter of "man who identifies as Tibetan godlike figure is associated with Tibet and is associated with PRC therefore PRC owns land delusional man is born in and the borders that culturally enclose this land".

Having said that, military strategy does come into play and how China's attitude on AP develops totally depends on military strategy and India China relations rather than where some delusional guy is born.

BTW it should honestly be noted that the Dalai Lama choosing ceremony and methods are HIGHLY politicised and corrupted by both Tibetan monks since God knows when AND by the CCP. It is totally man made nonsense and done as show of politics since a long time if not the entire time. The leaders and elders of the Tibetan ruling branch of Buddhism have always used this "Dalai Lama is born in xyz" as a political tool no different to anywhere else on earth and its politicians. The whole child choosing belonging thing has long been exposed as a pretty underwhelming magic trick if you can even call it a magic trick. The child the elders prefer is pre-selected, indoctrinated, and told the items before hand... I mean duhhhhhhh.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
@twineedle I know you're just providing a reason as to why Dalai Lama claims AP is Tibet and that's all. My point is to say that which country AP belongs to "more" doesn't factor in where the Dalai Lama is born. That is a ridiculous way to do things.

China's claims on AP has always been as a mirror to India's claims on AC. In more recent times, the calculus includes more strategic military concerns and may shift from those original reasons. At no point does it matter to either side where some delusional political figure is born since the choice of that figure itself is highly corrupted by the Tibetan monks and leaders themselves.

China state may use that as a propaganda line as reason for AP being Chinese but objectively such a line would be utterly ridiculous.

The root cause of these disputes is Aksai Chin and the surrounds (including those 20%). Even that is giving India more than it should have in my opinion but whatever... broken eggs and all that.

So commiseration for India is that it never controlled Aksai Chin and the legacy dispute and if anything, it sits on more (considered India proper by both sides) that should be Chinese land.

If Indian leaders can retract AC claim, watch the disputes status and relation improve. Of course there's still India's previously one sided animosity on China, supporting Tibetan independence for decades, and geopolitical souring of relations due to reasons surrounding Pakistan (China's balancing act on the Tibetan independence front from India... just like claiming AP when India claims AC).
 
E

Expert1324

New Member
Registered Member
ougoah said:
@twineedle I know you're just providing a reason as to why Dalai Lama claims AP is Tibet and that's all. My point is to say that which country AP belongs to "more" doesn't factor in where the Dalai Lama is born. That is a ridiculous way to do things.

China's claims on AP has always been as a mirror to India's claims on AC. In more recent times, the calculus includes more strategic military concerns and may shift from those original reasons. At no point does it matter to either side where some delusional political figure is born since the choice of that figure itself is highly corrupted by the Tibetan monks and leaders themselves.

China state may use that as a propaganda line as reason for AP being Chinese but objectively such a line would be utterly ridiculous.

The root cause of these disputes is Aksai Chin and the surrounds (including those 20%). Even that is giving India more than it should have in my opinion but whatever... broken eggs and all that.

So commiseration for India is that it never controlled Aksai Chin and the legacy dispute and if anything, it sits on more (considered India proper by both sides) that should be Chinese land.

If Indian leaders can retract AC claim, watch the disputes status and relation improve. Of course there's still India's previously one sided animosity on China, supporting Tibetan independence for decades, and geopolitical souring of relations due to reasons surrounding Pakistan (China's balancing act on the Tibetan independence front from India... just like claiming AP when India claims AC).
Click to expand...
From what i understand, the actual reason for China claiming ST/AP as its rightful sovereignty is because the Mcmahon Line (which is the sole basis of the current indian defacto control) unilaterally drawn by the British was never recognised. It was decided arbitrarily between the british officials and some tibetans when Tibet was administered by the Chinese government.
 
E

Expert1324

New Member
Registered Member
Expert1324 said:
From what i understand, the actual reason for China claiming ST/AP as its rightful sovereignty is because the Mcmahon Line (which is the sole basis of the current indian defacto control) unilaterally drawn by the British was never recognised. It was decided arbitrarily between the british officials and some tibetans when Tibet was administered by the Chinese government.
Click to expand...
^ In other words, this precisely shows that South Tibet had always been a part of Tibet, China. The British and subsequently Indians have absolutely no historical nor legal basis to be there in the first place. What you said/speculated is blatantly wrong at best.

Nonetheless, the ST/AP dispute is still ongoing today with india having the defacto control. China barely controlling 20% of all its disputed lands with india is categorically factual.
 
Xizor

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
Expert1324 said:
^ In other words, this precisely shows that South Tibet had always been a part of Tibet, China. The British and subsequently Indians have absolutely no historical nor legal basis to be there in the first place. What you said/speculated is blatantly wrong at best.

Nonetheless, the ST/AP dispute is still ongoing today with india having the defacto control. China barely controlling 20% of all its disputed lands with india is categorically factual.
Click to expand...
India was let to have control.
The south Tibet region was taken over by China but the PLA was called back from beyond the other slopes of Himalayas by the leaders in Beijing.

Why? No answer that'd convince everyone (or me). One among the long list of things that I'd like to think as a pointer towards China leader's "long strategic vision". Maybe that's naive of me. But certainly it was a gamble. Did the leaders of China predict that India would remain as wobbly and lackluster regarding development and comprehensive power till 2020? It seems like it.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
When was Arunachal Pradesh administered under Tibet? My understanding of it is that ... well never. It was an area of contention during the 1962 war but it's never been governed under any Chinese government whether Imperial China, ROC or PRC.
 
D

do3jack

New Member
Registered Member
ougoah said:
When was Arunachal Pradesh administered under Tibet? My understanding of it is that ... well never. It was an area of contention during the 1962 war but it's never been governed under any Chinese government whether Imperial China, ROC or PRC.
Click to expand...
Haha, your so-called evidence comes from India, which is full of false information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top