Reposting since it is still relevant. The LAC is not as complicated as some want it to be, the DE FACto lac is roughly where China reached in 1962, even though both sides have differences in perception in certain areas. In Galwan, only China has differences in perception. If anything, the lac has only shifted east since 1961, and hasn't changed since than
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
I was bringing up Col. Dinny in the context of you discrediting him back when we were discussing Pangong, despite no evidence contradicting him. The point still stands. Why isn't Col. Dinny credible when it comes to Pangong when all the available evidence supports him? Can't say the same for the same for the likes of Shukla.
As for Gogra Hot Springs, that has already been made pretty clear. China built up heavilly very close to the lac in areas that was previously vacant, hence violating the status quo as perceived by India. India in response did a mirror deployment in areas east of pp17 that China claimed. There was partial disengagement of forward troops and camps in July, though rear positions remain unchanged and there are still camps in close proximity east of Hot Springs(pp 15).
The problem according to the Indian Government is that India wants China to remove its artillery and armor, etc. from areas on its side, China is refusing unless India withdraws its forward deployments and ceases infrastructure construction, which India is refusing. Hence no progress there. The images both you and I have posted confirm that.
Last edited:
Stop with the essay -
We were discussing Galwan. Pangong is done and dusted.
Or do you have some thing more to say regarding Pangong Tso region?
There is no de facto LAC.
The LAC of India at Galwan has changed according to RJS. Not only the LAC, even the patrol points have been shifted. Chinese road construction, which for the past half century never came near the bend is now near to the bend.
Topic : Gogra 17 A
By which LAC? If the LAC is as per what you insist, then China has no infrastructure nearby. The infrastructure is 15 km away. You are glaring at the obvious here.
Again, going by your version of the LAC, Artillery and camps are far inside the Chinese territory. Why bother about someone else's deployment far inside their own territory?
But if Ajai Shukla's LAC and PPs are right, then indeed, China seems to be extremely near and even intruding India's LAC.
You still never provided any evidence contradicting Col. Dinny when we were discussing Pangong, and I am still waiting to see why he is not credible. And aren't we discussing the lac? Becasue Col. Dinny's interview provided good information about historic Indian patrolling activity and lines of patrolling.
Abhijit iyer Mitra's map explains everything. As has been said earlier, only China has differeing perceptions of the LAC in hot Springs. And by your logic, why is China considered with Indian buildup and infrastructure on its own side?
Once again the lac hasn't changed since after 1962, and Galwan isn't even an area where India has a differing perception, India's claim has always matched the line China reached in 62.
That think thank shills map doesn't explain "everything". If it did, I wouldn't be bringing up Ajai Shukla's map. His analysis is partisan at best but lacks the depth.
Two things ( I keep reiterating but again)
1. Where did the Patrol points go? Did these patrol points even exist? Since Ajai Shukla has demarcated it quite precisely, there is big importance to that map over Mitra's.
2. If the Mitra map is right, India should not have any issues with China regarding PP17 A.
- Status