Ladakh Flash Point

Xsizor said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ajai Shukla is literally the only person mentioning pps 18-20. No credible Indian media or even any statements by the Indian gov. mentioned them.

And Shukla is the clear definition of a partisan. Iyer has his biases, but he does not let them interfere with his analyses. His map was clearly showing the ground positions of both India and China at the time. And almost a year later, Detresfa's image is almsst a complete match. i have already provided reasons why as per the Indian pov, there are still problems in Gogra Hot Springs(though more specifically hot Springs.)

Anyway, "think tank shills" are far better sources than political operatives like Shukla.

twineedle said:

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.

Click to expand...

Topic : Galwan.

This person doesn't think so.



India's claims and Indian LAC are different. Use the right words because I'm sure we will have to discuss that too. India's LAC at Galwan isn't dependent on what China claimed prior 1962. There has been no agreement between India and China after 1962, forcing India to accept the LAC as at 1962.

What you are insisting is (to be simply put) this -

India, after the war of 1962, decided to place the LAC exactly where China laid its claims. No agreements, no nothing. I wouldn't do that if I were India.

twineedle said:

Ajai Shukla is literally the only person mentioning pps 18-20. No credible Indian media or even any statements by the Indian gov. mentioned them.

Click to expand...

You are right!
But he does mention these patrol points and places them on a map clearly. Why does he place these Patrol points there? He could have chose not to do it but he did.

My question is, why? Why not PP25, 27 or PP30?
Why place these apparently conjured up PP on those particular locations? I don't think you can simply discredit him by saying No Indian media mentions them. They also don't mention the Henderson BrooK report. Doesn't mean that report doesn't exist, does it?

Xsizor said:

Topic : Galwan.

This person doesn't think so.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

India's claims and Indian LAC are different. Use the right words because I'm sure we will have to discuss that too. India's LAC at Galwan isn't dependent on what China claimed prior 1962. There has been no agreement between India and China after 1962, forcing India to accept the LAC as at 1962.

What you are insisting is (to be simply put) this -

India, after the war of 1962, decided to place the LAC exactly where China laid its claims. No agreements, no nothing. I wouldn't do that if I were India.

Click to expand...

I specifically said in some areas both sides have differences in perception(the official terminology used by India). At Galwan, china does, India doesn't

Xsizor said:

Topic : Galwan.

This person doesn't think so.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

India's claims and Indian LAC are different. Use the right words because I'm sure we will have to discuss that too. India's LAC at Galwan isn't dependent on what China claimed prior 1962. There has been no agreement between India and China after 1962, forcing India to accept the LAC as at 1962.

What you are insisting is (to be simply put) this -

India, after the war of 1962, decided to place the LAC exactly where China laid its claims. No agreements, no nothing. I wouldn't do that if I were India.

Click to expand...

China didn't reach all of its claims in 1962. That is why China is still interested in the area. As I said before, China's perception of the LAC at Galwan is roughly 2 km west of the historic lac, as shown on google maps. Once again, we are not talking about claims, we are talking about differing perceptions, the official term.

So far, there is no evidence that India has differing perceptions of the LAC at Galwan, so the lac is exactly as it was before 2020. Unless both the US Office of the Geographer and the CIA have been wrong this whole time lol.

The clash last summer happened because China unsuccessfully tried to shift the lac westwards towards its original perception, shown below.
Despite that attempt, the LAC is currently where it has been for decades.

twineedle said:

I specifically said in some areas both sides have differences in perception(the official terminology used by India) At Galwan, china does.

Click to expand...

Topic : Galwan

Different perception of LAC?
But the ground reality of Indian LAC at Galwan was touched upon by the Chinese.

Ultimately, the question is - Did India's "perception" of LAC change over the decades. RJS says that it has indeed changed.

twineedle said:

China didn't reach all of its claims in 1962. That is why China is still interested in the area. As I said before, China's perception of the LAC at Galwan is roughly 2 km west of the historic lac, as shown on google maps. Once again, we are not talking about claims, we are talking about differing perceptions, the official term.

Click to expand...

So if China reached a particular place, India would take note and place its LAC there? Absurd. Then South Tibet /Arunachal would be a different tale.

China withdrew quickly after 1962 war. That doesn't have a bearing on where India places its LAC or does it?

Differing perceptions of what? LAC?

Yuan dynasty was first time in China's history when Tibet became a part of it. Ladakh was always a part of Tibet, until where it stops being Tibet (China) and becomes "India" (the stateless, borderless general geographic expression because India didn't exist back then whereas the nation of China did). It just wasn't too clear where it stopped being Tibet and started being part of the old Mughal empire. That's meaningless a discussion now because like the Aztec nation borders, that nation which existed before British India, is two times removed from history. But therein lies the issue that make this a dispute.

Anyway... Yuan dynasty preceded so many European colonial states. If Tibet can be talked about as if it isn't part of China because China "only" conquered it under Mongol expansion in China's Yuan dynasty, then European colonial lands should also be returned to previous states? Various native Indian tribes for north American and so on? It has no more legitimacy (in fact less) than Tibet as China.

Tibet has been China for centuries, nearly a millennia. Just like it's ridiculous and unreasonable to ask all European descendents to leave conquered lands they have been building up for centuries, it's also ridiculous to ask China to give Tibet independence for no more reason than "China government bad bad". They can and should legitimately tell whoever says that to go get fucked. Can I say Australian government treated aborigines poorly and Australia should give all of its western half to natives? Or the Euro settlers performed decades upon decades of ethnic cleansing on native Americans and they should now lose Texas and California at least to Mexico? LOL How would the US gov take those concerns and statements if it came officially from many of its enemies?

Ladakh has always been administered under Tibet and under China by extension. China lost influence in Tibet during a part of its history when Europeans invaded China and colonised parts of it. That's not China's fault for succumbing to someone else's evil. Lessons learned though. China will not do to India what Europeans did to both China and India. But on these sorts of matters, it will consider the position of the nation in question and determine the correct decision. Wrt this dispute, China considers India much more a negative force to it than a neutral or positive one and so even the remaining 20% is being withheld. Does China want the 20%? If it can of course why wouldn't it but it doesn't want to inflame this region now. It's got little to nothing to gain from it while India does. China has more to lose in flaring up these issues with India. It has much more pressing issues to deal with than India and a 20% of a dispute that is uninhabitable and useless.

India has no claim here. It has no historic claim because India is not the Mughal empire and India. It's borders never existed until the mid 20th century. Once Pakistan split, it had even less grounds for claiming these parts of Ladakh.

PRC is a rebranded China but it's still China. It went through a government revolution which overthrew the old emporer and then a civil war between the two major groups ensued where the communists won. The communists take what is all of China. That includes Taiwan but the Americans supported the KMT to remain in Taiwan as a means of controlling China - European divide and conquer strategy. They supported the communists and Mao as well as the KMT. Their purpose wasn't ideological, it was to ensure that China always had lines of division where they can flare up and use against China and Chinese people.

By winning the revolution and civil war, the CCP is the RIGHTFUL government of China and Tibet. The crackdown in Tibet was CCP bringing communist ideology to Tibet to drive out the slave owners in Tibet and ensure that it also undergoes the communist revolutionary war/ class war whatever, like the rest of China. Tibet is just another province. All provinces had the same treatment - remove capitalist ways etc but Tibet was especially offensive to the ideology because Tibet was a serfdom based on extremely backwards mentality and slavery. Yes even worse than communists in a wartorn unindustrialised nation. The crackdown wasn't an invasion of Tibet. Western autism presents it as but Tibet was a part of China and then PRC back then and never left in the 20th century. Again that was a CCP crackdown of vile Tibetan rulers like Dalai Lama the most overhyped, manipulative snake, self declared man god, slave owner, rapist (yes they had sex slaves), and torturer of members of other Buddhist sects. The Buddhists can and often are violent if Myanmar Buddhist treatment of Muslims is a hint. Point is no saints around anywhere only interests and how well devious pricks can present themselves as saints (west).

Update on US Navy FONOP in Indian EEZ:

US DoD has conducted similar operations in the EEZ of several countries like Pakistan, South Korea, Japan etc just last year alone.
So nothing new and no country in the region can claim high ground that US did not conduct such ops in their EEZ
So as long as US continues to do such FONOP in waters claimed by US allies like Japan, South Korea and also against India's adversaries like Pakistan and China, India has no problem with US FONOPS in Indian EEZ.

Thankfully US already regularly conducts FONOPS in Pakistan, China, Japan and South Korea waters.








US has conducted FONOPs against Japan, South Korea, North Korea, China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.