Ladakh Flash Point

Status
Not open for further replies.

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
There is only one pla camp within India's perception, and that is within the red circle. India also has a camp within Chinese perception in areas it had never patrolled before.

Yes, all of China's artillery and armor are on its side but very close.

Don't know why you are still mentioning pp 19 when that has not been mentioned by the Indian media source you quote, or by any Indian statement.

Currently, the standoff point is within the red circle.

I am open to seeing any evidence of positions at other points.
Indian media hasn't yet given a good description of Patrol points in that region too. So let's stop exchange on the " PP19" part because I'm more like Thomas than any other.

India has a camp in Chinese perception of Claims, maybe. Not LAC. And that region is the red circle itself. All this happened within Indian LAC and most know that.

Don't try to be ambiguous here. India has no camps east of PP15 as you initially claimed (which led to this round of exchange w/ me).


Do note that you've dropped your claims of a camp at Kungrong Valley that lies east to PP15. That's all I was looking at.
 

twineedle

Junior Member
Registered Member
China's perception of the lac lies near the confluence of the confluence of the Kugrang and Changlung, roughly where pp15 is. India has a camp well ahead of that and within the Chinese LAC. As mentioned before the hot Springs sector is one region where there are differing perceptions of the lac. Perceptions are specifically related to the LAC, not claims.
 

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
China's perception of the lac lies near the confluence of the confluence of the Kugrang and Changlung, roughly where pp15 is. India has a camp well ahead of that. As mentioned before the hot Springs sector is one region where there are differing perceptions of the lac.
No, China's perception of traditional LAC doesn't lie anywhere near that region.

I will accept so if you can prove that China has done patrols to near that confluence in the past. Then that'd mean traditional LAC or perception of it lies there.

China however may claim the region.

Big difference between LAC and Claims.
 

twineedle

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
China has had roads crossing the Indian perception of the lac before 2020. PLA had built camps further south of the camp that remains, implying its perception lies beyond that, but those were withdrawn. Even though PLA may have patrolled there in the past it had never occupied positions there or set up positions on its side, the only camp it had was the one near Kongka La.

The Indian road only led to pp15 before 2020, though it was expanded. As i mentioned before, India never previously patrolled past pp15 and never had any camps in the area before last year. Now, India obviously has a camp and supporting infrastructure well beyond pp15. Both sides never patrolled exactly up to their respective perceptions though.
The Chinese perception of the LAC is shown by the yellow line in Abhijit Iyer's map.
No, China's perception of traditional LAC doesn't lie anywhere near that region.

I will accept so if you can prove that China has done patrols to near that confluence in the past. Then that'd mean traditional LAC or perception of it lies there.

China however may claim the region.

Big difference between LAC and Claims.
So where exactly is China's perception? We know that there are differences in perception at Hot Springs sector, the Indian government itself has said that.
 

Attachments

  • IMAGE-2.png
    IMAGE-2.png
    756.5 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
China has had roads crossing the Indian perception of the lac before 2020. PLA had built camps further south of the camp that remains, implying its perception lies beyond that, but those were withdrawn. Even though PLA may have patrolled there in the past it had never occupied positions there or set up positions on its side, the only camp it had was the one near Kongka La.

The Indian road only led to pp15 before 2020, though it was expanded. Both sides never patrolled exactly up to their respective perceptions though.
The Chinese perception of the LAC is shown by the yellow line in Abhijit Iyer's map.

So where exactly is China's perception? We know that there are differences in perception at Hot Springs sector, the Indian government itself has said that.
There patrols don't seem to intrude much into the Indian perception of LAC. A kilometer or so short, I'd say.

Then again, were these patrols done for the past half century (or better past two decades)? Likely not.

The yellow bulge is supposed to be China's Claim line as you said months ago.

The LAC of China is not set. China however has pursued to make its Claim lines and LAC become the same for long. That's common knowledge. China hasn't released its LAC (not that it has any incentive to).
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
Notice this Indian keeps bringing up "perceived LAC". There's no such thing. In no other conflict I've heard anyone use that phrase before.

You've got your claimed borders and a line of control, that's it. Your claimed borders are where you want your army to be and the control line is where it is. There's no need for any other terminology.

It's another Indian misdirection. Indians have had to withdraw from the LAC, yet they continue to claim it exists where it did before they started hostilities.
 

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
Notice this Indian keeps bringing up "perceived LAC". There's no such thing. In no other conflict I've heard anyone use that phrase before.

You've got your claimed borders and a line of control, that's it. Your claimed borders are where you want your army to be and the control line is where it is. There's no need for any other terminology.

It's another Indian misdirection. Indians have had to withdraw from the LAC, yet they continue to claim it exists where it did before they started hostilities.
Its an attempt to show that India is in China's LAC as much as China is in India's.

The reality is China hasn't moved an inch back but the same can't be said for India. China has no "perceived LAC", it merely has Claims. And it works to reach that claims.
 

twineedle

Junior Member
Registered Member
Notice this Indian keeps bringing up "perceived LAC". There's no such thing. In no other conflict I've heard anyone use that phrase before.

You've got your claimed borders and a line of control, that's it. Your claimed borders are where you want your army to be and the control line is where it is. There's no need for any other terminology.

It's another Indian misdirection. Indians have had to withdraw from the LAC, yet they continue to claim it exists where it did before they started hostilities.
Perceived LAC is the official term used by the Indian government. India's official claims are the entirety of Aksai Chin, While China officially does not recognize Ladakh as a part of India. India's perceived LAC for the most part corresponds to where China reached in 1962, but there are some differences in perception by both sides. Once again, this is the official terminology. In areas like Galwan and Hot Springs, China's perception is west of India's, and in areas like Demchok and Pangong, India's is East of the current LAC. I

Where did India have to withdraw? In Galwan and Pangong, India withdrew from forward areas it had never occupied before. In Pangong, India had never held any position east of Finger 4, and Finger 4 effectively blocked off indian troops patrolling on foot. India only forward deployed some temporary camps near finger 4, other than that India is exactly where it was before the standoff started. China meanwhile had created permanent and strategic infrastructure all the way up to its perceived lac but had to dismantle it all and withdraw to shere it started. So status quo ante restored.

In Galwan China's perceived lac is roughly halfway within the Indian controlled portion of the valley, and its claims are even further. During the disengagement, both sides withdrew from the Indian perception of the lac, meaning China is even further back from its lac than it was before Previously India only patrolled the valley when conditions permitted, now it has permanent camps and strategic infrastructure connecting the valley to DBO all the way to the beginning of the buffer zone, which is also China's perception. This is clearly visible on google Earth. In addition, India occupied the heights adjacent to the valley, securing that portion of DBO. So how did India withdraw when in both secotors, China withdrew more? And how did the LAC change? The fact is China tried to shift the LAC westward but failed.

The noly active conflict point of the last standoff is in Hot springs, where China did come pretty close to its perception, which is roughly the confluence of the Kugrang and the Changlung. Previously, Indian patrols never went past pp15 which i roughly located around the confluence, however last summer India forward deployed beyond pp15 into China's perceived lac. During last July's disengagement, China withdrew most of its camps, and now only one Indian and one PLA camp remain in the disputed area, which lies within both the Indian and Chinese perceptions. Once again, the Indian camp is far beyond where Indian soldiers used to patrol. That standoff is still ongoing.

It would be helpful to do basic research on the subject.

For reference, this is a CIA map of the LAC as it was in the early 2000s. That line stills stands today, despite china's attempts to shift it west, even though both sides still have their perceptions/claims. There is the LAC as it stands(de facto) and the LAC both sides perceive/claim. Neither of those have changed.
 

Attachments

  • kashmir_region_2004.jpg
    kashmir_region_2004.jpg
    397.7 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
Perceived LAC is the official term used by the Indian government. India's official claims are the entirety of Aksai Chin, While China officially does not recognize Ladakh as a part of India. India's perceived LAC for the most part corresponds to where China reached in 1962, but there are some differences in perception by both sides. Once again, this is the official terminology. In areas like Galwan and Hot Springs, China's perception is west of India's, and in areas like Demchok and Pangong, India's is East of the current LAC. I

Where did India have to withdraw? In Galwan and Pangong, India withdrew from forward areas it had never occupied before. In Pangong, India had never held any position east of Finger 4, and Finger 4 effectively blocked off indian troops patrolling on foot. India only forward deployed some temporary camps near finger 4, other than that India is exactly where it was before the standoff started. China meanwhile had created permanent and strategic infrastructure all the way up to its perceived lac but had to dismantle it all and withdraw to shere it started. So status quo ante restored.

In Galwan China's perceived lac is roughly halfway within the Indian controlled portion of the valley, and its claims are even further. During the disengagement, both sides withdrew from the Indian perception of the lac, meaning China is even further back from its lac than it was before Previously India only patrolled the valley when conditions permitted, now it has permanent camps and strategic infrastructure connecting the valley to DBO all the way to the beginning of the buffer zone, which is also China's perception. This is clearly visible on google Earth. In addition, India occupied the heights adjacent to the valley, securing that portion of DBO. So how did India withdraw when in both secotors, China withdrew more? And how did the LAC change? The fact is China tried to shift the LAC westward but failed.

The noly active conflict point of the last standoff is in Hot springs, where China did come pretty close to its perception, which is roughly the confluence of the Kugrang and the Changlung. Previously, Indian patrols never went past pp15 which i roughly located around the confluence, however last summer India forward deployed beyond pp15 into China's perceived lac. During last July's disengagement, China withdrew most of its camps, and now only one Indian and one PLA camp remain in the disputed area, which lies within both the Indian and Chinese perceptions. Once again, the Indian camp is far beyond where Indian soldiers used to patrol. That standoff is still ongoing.

It would be helpful to do basic research on the subject.

For reference, this is a CIA map of the LAC as it was in the early 2000s. That line stills stands today, despite china's attempts to shift it west, even though both sides still have their perceptions/claims. There is the LAC as it stands(de facto) and the LAC both sides perceive/claim. Neither of those have changed.
Lengthy essay.
Let's start from the beginning -
"Perceived LAC " term was highlighted only lately. In most cases, LAC is used/has been in use. China has never placed an LAC (Though it mentions it by name). China eyes Claim line (which is often a few km away from the LAC of India.)

Bold 1: India's LAC doesn't correspond to areas China reached in 1962. China reached it claim line and then pulled back. India, after the war placed the LAC along the region that they judged to be, with Patrol points and in places that China would not raise severe objection.

Simply put India's LAC isn't well demarcated but justified by Patrols, China's is never even justified by anything. The concept is of value to the side on defensive.

In all regions of interest in Ladakh - China doesn't raise LAC but Claim lines. This is because there is no point of raising LAC for China except when it suits them. The Claim lines are nearby for China.



Coming to where India had to step back.

Galwan - LAC of India shifted back by 1 km. Buffer zone created with new LAC. China laid a road to near the bend. China now claims most of Galwan.

Depsang - LAC of India broke down. China has camps quite far into Depsang. No point of LAC here, China is an odd kilometer away from her supposed Claim.

Hot Springs - PP15, as was discussed before, China's camp exists a kilometer into India's LAC. China is meters away from its Claim lines.

Gogra - beyond PP17A. Indian LAC not clear. But judging from Indian news itself, China is 700m into the LAC of India. (The issue here being the location of patrol points).

Result : China moved closer to its claim lines (except in Pangong Tso which is down south).

Note : The best way to ascertain this LAC of India is by looking at the farthest patrol points. The Patrol points or PP usually lie meters away from the LAC.


@twineedle is engaging in purposeful and convenient ambiguity when he/she doesn't mention either Claim line or LAC and use the word "Perception".

For those who don't yet grasp.

India has a perceived LAC.
China has a perceived Claim line.

That's it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top