i see once again we aer going with the google is wrong narrative, despite the fact India does not have differing perceptions about the lac in Gogra hot springs, and the fact there is a clear road going from Gogra to various points. But to be fair, perhaps I did interpret Shukla's intentionally vague map incorrectly. That just further erodes his credibility since he is showing the Indian claimed line as the Chinese claim(even though there is no dispute in gogra) and pulling some other random line literally not seen in any other available map.
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
No.
We are right now in the process of 'twineedle slips up regarding his maps' narrative.
Now you claim that map is intentionally vague?
Remarkable. A fine example cognitive dissonance.
You, who went by Ajai Shukla's presentation of patrol points is throwing it away entirely. Nice.
Let's think a bit different here @twineedle.
Hypothetical -
1. Consider that PP19 is where you pointed out in that map.
2. Consider that China has a post as shown by detresfa (March 1,2021)map that is so far away from this supposed PP19.
Dont you think there exists no issues at that Region? Why does Indian government insist that situation is unresolved completely? Why should there be a disengagement in a place with no conflict?
I admit I may have interpreted Shukla's map incorrectly. That does not mean he is right, especially when there is no other source backing him up. On the other hand, the LAC shown on Google is used in all maps on satellite images and media sources, and there is no evidence the lac is any different. The only reason I looked at Shukla's map in the first place was because I could not find any other source for those patrolling points, which probably would make it easier for him to lie about their location. As I said before, there is clearly a road extending from gogra, it makes tactical sense for it to loop around to the patrol points.
The only evidence we have is the satellite imagery showing China's post is around 6km from the lac, anything else is speculation. Still no hard evidence has been presented for any sort of buffer zone in Indian territory.
And regardless of where the patrol points are, they are several hundred meters behind the 1962 line, the Indian claimed lac(shown on Google)..
The only evidence we have is the satellite imagery showing China's post is around 6km from the lac, anything else is speculation. Still no hard evidence has been presented for any sort of buffer zone in Indian territory.
And regardless of where the patrol points are, they are several hundred meters behind the 1962 line, the Indian claimed lac(shown on Google)..
Last edited:
Are there any other sources supporting Shukla's claims?
You still go back to that statement.
We don't have an agreement on where the LAC is. How can you claim that China is x km from a particular LAC?
I have not yet found any other map showing Patrol Points other than Shukla. If there was one, I wouldn't be quoting Shukla. Because Shukla isn't important to me compared to China-India.
I have no impetus to consistently defend Shukla. My focus is on China vs India.
If you can furnish an alternative map showing Patrol Points then we may incorporate that into discussion.
If I could find another one, I would have used it. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe the points Shukla presented are accurate.
There is no difference in perception between China and India at the Gogra sector, the dispute is north at hot springs. And aside from Shukla, there does seem to be a relatively clear idea on where the LAC is, at least in this sector
Anyway, this is beside the point. You have made two very specific claims, that China is occupying Indian claimed territory, and that a buffer zone has been extended into Indian territory. Yet you have preseted no hard evidence, just claims from biased sources like Shukla. The burden of proof is on the claimant.
And it is well known that the patrol points are several hundred meters behind the lac. So if a post is 6 km from the lac, then by extention it is a little more than 6 km from said patrol point. Where exactly along the lac the pp is located is not as important.
Again,
Unless you can find alternate maps, what Shukla provided can be taken as the real deal. Calling him biased ain't challenging his maps or claims.
So, yes. There is enough material to claim that China has pushed India back in its own patrol zones. The Indian governments position regarding these regions when read together gives a good picture.
Unless you find challenging evidence that remains the case.
Even when you take that into consideration (LAC be some distance away from posts) China would still be inside Indian territory.
BTW, you do realize that you are shifting the goalposts here, don't you?
First it was about where PP19 was.
Then, it was about Shukla's map.
Now it is about Shukla being biased and true LAC location.
Last edited:
This is what I question and definitely up for debate since facts are so far and few between.
I think there are parts between dotted and blue that was more controlled by China i.e. Gogra and parts that were more controlled by India - Depsang (beyond blue line) and parts that were just contested by both - Pangong.
China built a road recently on Pangong stretch between F4 and F8 but it was met with opposition and attempts at mirror build up by India.
No idea about Demchok.
You still have not provided any evidence that the map presented on google earth or the very same satellite images you use is incorrect. According to you, when one person says something and ten people say something different, those ten people's claims should be discounted regardless of their testimony.
But the location of pp19 was never teh main point of our discussion. I was arguing that there is no evidence of any buffer zone or even any evidence of changing Indian patrols, since there is no evidence of any Chinese activity outside of that one post. Detresfa, who you yourself posts marks it as 6 kmf from INDIA"S CLAIM LINE. Are you saying he is not creddible?
Here is the image you yourself posted. Now compare it to where the lac is(the actual lac, not the shukla lac which does not apear on any other maps.) It isn't hard considering there are no differing perceptions at the moment. Interestingly, I have noticed you have never marked an lac on your diagrams, probably to help your debunked narrative of Chinese victory/shifting lac. HInt: THe lac (Indian claim line) is about 6km west of the confluence. Surey it shouldn't be hard for you to mark.
Another hint: THe patrol points are a few hundred meters behind the dotted line. The same one in the image posted by @ougoah
Where exactly they are is debatable, but irrelevant knowing the above.
In gogra, pp19 is most likely somewhere West of the Red dot at Gogra.
BTW, I do not think it has been mentioned that China has always had a small border outpost there for decades. However, only recently it was upgraded from a small post to a major base, perhaps with some artilery and armor, etc. But if China had always had a small post there, how could India patrol there, as Shukla claimed(even if India claimed it fell behind its lac, which it never did)
But anyway, I do admit I was mistaken to take Shukla's map seriously just for the sake of this discussion, even though they contradict images by detresfa and others. That simply changed the subject of this exchange from evidence of a buffer zone, your initial claim, to an irrelevant debate about the exact locations of patrol points. You still ahve not presented any CLEAR evidence, and the images you have posted contradicted your and Shukla's claims. Although there are differing perceptions elsewhere, the lac at Gogra that both India and CHina recognize is quite clear and has not been shifted, even though you are trying to make it so. Nor have you provided any evidence that google is wrong and that India has not claimed the same lac it has for decades, instead of the one SHukla created out of thin air.
And once again, even if there is a buffer zone, and there will likely be one if/when disengagement is completed, that buffer zone will include Chinese territory like the ones at Pangong and Galwan did, simply because of how close the pps are to the lac. That is simple logic.
Last edited:
Include Chinese territory? None of this is remotely close to Chinese territory my man.
By that logic I could call Chinese bases in Aksai Chin being on Indian territory of which China's won and controlled for decades.
The points you two are arguing about is between the blue line and the pink dotted line. That's a best for India, the very edge of newer Chinese territory.
- Status