Ladakh Flash Point

localizer said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I have a nagging suspicion that the so called U.S. intelligence source is actually Falungong. I mean think about it. Since the U.S. military does not have direct asset in the Himalayas the U.S. news site probably relied on second hand accounts from people physically in China. Since Falungong are primarily Chinese and do extend their tendrils in mainland China, they are highly suspect.

siegecrossbow said:

I have a nagging suspicion that the so called U.S. intelligence source is actually Falungong. I mean think about it. Since the U.S. military does not have direct asset in the Himalayas the U.S. news site probably relied on second hand accounts from people physically in China. Since Falungong are primarily Chinese and do extend their tendrils in mainland China, they are highly suspect.

Click to expand...

Here's an insight into how anti-Chinese propaganda get their numbers:




The anti-Chinese propaganda sources is circular: he said that he said that he said.

Mohsin77 said:

Not at all. A couple of points to clear up the confusion:

1) Regarding the new status quo in Pangong Tso, where India can no longer patrol up to Finger 8, here's what Shukla said a month ago (from his June 20 article): "True, at the Pangong Tso they have occupied territory well inside Finger 8, where Indian patrols regularly went. But this could be because Finger 8 is uncomfortably close to the Xinjiang-Tibet Highway, for which the PLA is creating a territorial buffer. Alternatively it may be the plan to eventually withdraw from here, tossing India a face-saver while retaining the tactically crucial heights overlooking the DBDSO road." Source

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

My conclusion is grounded on an understanding that the recent disengagement agreement created buffer zones between fingers 3 to 5 for the Indians and fingers 5 to 8 for the Chinese. As I said previously a lot depends on the meaning of what can and cannot be done within the buffer zone.

If the buffer zone means off limit for patrols, then the Chinese and Indian patrols both stop at finger 5. This also mean as long as the buffer zone agreement holds, the Indians lost patrol access beyond fingers 5 to 8. Likewise, the Chinese lost patrol access beyond fingers 5 to 2.

Mohsin77 said:

2) Let's examine this "buffer" terminology, which is incorrectly being used by the Indian media. In order to understand how "buffers" work, we need to look at the claim lines first. In the same article (from a month ago) Shukla provided the only map which actually matters (all the satellite images spammed on this thread are comical attempts at self delusion.) See below for the demarcation of China's 1959/60 claim lines (dotted), versus India's claimed border (which was actually Britain's claimed border). Notice how all the recent clashes (Depsang/Galwan/Hotspring/Pangong Tso) are all deep within the Indian/British claimed borderline. So who has the actual "buffer" here? Clearly, not India.

Click to expand...

The map you presented suggest a much more bigger problem for the Chinese in terms of delineation of border. The border line supposedly affirmed by the Chinese Premier Chou En Lai and the territory at Pangong Tso is well within recognised Indian side of the border. In other words, the Chinese have long violated Indian territory and the issue dates back way before this recent border incidents.

If your point is did India loose territory? Yes it did but it lost it a long time ago. However it also shows that China has infringed on Indian territory even by China's own territorial claims.

Brumby said:

My conclusion is grounded on an understanding that the recent disengagement agreement created buffer zones between fingers 3 to 5 for the Indians and fingers 5 to 8 for the Chinese. As I said previously a lot depends on the meaning of what can and cannot be done within the buffer zone.

If the buffer zone means off limit for patrols, then the Chinese and Indian patrols both stop at finger 5. This also mean as long as the buffer zone agreement holds, the Indians lost patrol access beyond fingers 5 to 8. Likewise, the Chinese lost patrol access beyond fingers 5 to 2.


The map you presented suggest a much more bigger problem for the Chinese in terms of delineation of border. The border line supposedly affirmed by the Chinese Premier Chou En Lai and the territory at Pangong Tso is well within recognised Indian side of the border. In other words, the Chinese have long violated Indian territory and the issue dates back way before this recent border incidents.

If your point is did India loose territory? Yes it did but it lost it a long time ago. However it also shows that China has infringed on Indian territory even by China's own territorial claims.

Click to expand...

Once again this guy pretends to know what he's talking about when he really has no idea what he's talking about.

Still waiting on his derivation of coronavirus growth using reproductive number

siegecrossbow said:

I have a nagging suspicion that the so called U.S. intelligence source is actually Falungong. I mean think about it. Since the U.S. military does not have direct asset in the Himalayas the U.S. news site probably relied on second hand accounts from people physically in China. Since Falungong are primarily Chinese and do extend their tendrils in mainland China, they are highly suspect.

Click to expand...

It is the same writer from US News that made a claim that 35 PLA soldiers died in the clash. No major International news media is reporting such claim.

Article in Wangcha Sangey's Facebook dated 11 July 2020 is as follows -

Forever the grave danger for Bhutan is mistrusting China and being humped by India.
Caution: to be read only by those with some depth of political intelligence and general awareness of international.affairs plus open mind and patience to read and comprehend this "long article" . I say " long article" because most educated Bhutanese have illiterate quality. Do not read and if they read donot care to absorb the content. Almost like myself reading the Dharma scripts without being able to absorb the meanings but still at least I have the patience to read the text.
Advice: Being unaware is not a bliss when it comes to China and India politics with Bhutan inbetween. A case study of Doklam and Sakteng Wild Life Sanctury. Happy reading & reflections.
1. The case of Doklam: a disputed territory of Bhutan and China invaded by Indian Army.
In June, 2017, the invasion of Doklam by India took place. There is a deliberate confusion of the actual date of transgression. It seems to have begun on 5th June but China may have reacted much later. By 18th June, India Army was there in proper strength and establishment. And the invasion ended with Indian Army withdrawing from Doklam after being holed up there for 72 days or more for some soldiers. India does not have any claim upon Doklam. The consequence of Indian Army transgression was the establishment of permanent Chinese Army camp at Doklam. Before the Indian Army invasion, Doklam was not a militarized territory. It was a desolate plateau in the Winter and in the Summer it was a land of yaks, only toured once or twice by both Bhutanese and Chinese soldiers. There was no constant military presence let alone permanent Army camps.
By the end of 2016, Bhutan and China had more or less reached technical agreement on the international boundaries of Bhutan in the disputed areas in the north of Haa and Bumthang Valleys as well in South west of Haa Valley ( Doklam ). We have much to thank the International Boundary Teams led by late Dasho Pema Wangchuk our International Boundary Secretary. Dasho was ofcourse guided by their Majesties the 4th King and 5th King and enjoyed full Royal confidence and trust.
The two Governments in Beijing and Thimphu were in the process of making the final political decision to formalize the Technical Agreement. But then Indian Army invaded Doklam and things went haywire. Still the Talks can be picked up today from where it was disrupted in 2017. But ofcourse Bhutan may have to now reassure China that Bhutan will not surrender Bhutanese territory at the pleasure of India to attack China. Especially those that China concedes to Bhutan during Border Talks. Establishing diplomatic and trade relationship with China is one very effective way of giving sound assurance of friendship and enabling mutual trust. China must then on the other hand be generous with Bhutan in regards to land disputes at the international borders.
2. International Boundary status of Bhutan in the 4 sides of the Kingdom.
Before delving into any particular territorial disputes/ hysteria especially the type and hype of craze about Sakteng in the Indian media, Bhutanese need to know a little about the background of international boundaries of Bhutan in the four sides of the Kingdom: the South, West, North and East of Bhutan.
In the South of Bhutan, the international boundary with India was drawn up by the Survey of India. Bhutan simply agreed where ever the boundary pillars were set up by India. Bhutanese authority's heirachial fear was being taken over like Sikkim. There was no Boundary Talks between India and Bhutan. Bhutan had no say. We abided by what India dictated. Thus almost all plain areas in the South are on the Indian side and Bhutan is left with the foothills.
There is no dispute with India in the west of Bhutan as boundaries are mainly with Tibet China. Parts of western and northern boundaries where there are disputes between Bhutan and China are being covered in the ongoing Bhutan China Border Talks. Only Indian interference is preventing Bhutan from signing an Agreement with China regarding our Northern and Western Borders. Bhutan and Bhutanese leadership has been acting more a proxy for India in the International Boundary Talks with China about our own national borders. This is still our prevailing weakness in national leadership.
Now in the East, Bhutan still holds onto an international boundary that she could hold on to till date. However, in the East no formal international boundary demarcation has been done between Bhutan and India or between Bhutan and China. The main reason could be that Arunachal Pradesh which borders Bhutan in the East is claimed by both China and India. Presently India administers the Arunachal Pradesh state but China does not recognize Indian jurisdiction. Therefore, until China and India can finalize their individual nation's status in regards to Arunachal Pradesh, there cannot be international boundary Delimitation Talks between Bhutan and China or between Bhutan and India.So the present status quo needs to be respected.
3. The Chinese claim of Sakteng a "disputed territory " and the implication thereof.
Sakteng is an irrefutable part of Trashigang Dzongkhag which is the eastern most region of Bhutan adjoining the State of Arunachal Pradesh. China knows it and India knows it.
The recent issue raised by China regarding Sakteng Wild Life Sanctury may have more to do with the Chinese claim on Arunachal Pradesh than an attempt to block GEF funding for Sakteng Wild Life Sanctury. I believe that China did make a request to GEF Council to note that Sakteng was a "disputed territory " between Bhutan and China. The Chinese reasoning was based on the fact that so far no Border Talks has been held between Bhutan and China regarding international boundary between Trashigang Dzongkhag of Bhutan and Arunachal Pradesh which China claims to be hers. Note that China did not declare Sakteng to be a Chinese territory. But a " disputed territory". Sakteng falls on the border of Arunachal Pradesh. In the absence of formal delimitation, if Bhutan was a big nation like China and India, Bhutan, too, can theoretically claim that part of Arunachal Pradesh as "disputed territory". And on the other hand, who knows where the Survey of India would place the boundary pillars if India had absolute claim over Arunachal Pradesh?
4. Indian proposal for highway connecting Tawang to Trashigang.
India has been pushing Bhutan to open up Trashingang to Tawang. There is a huge political reason behind Indian demand that far surpasses any commercial aspect. Bhutanese leadership have to be aware that until the cloud of disputed ownership of Arunachal Pradesh is cleared between China and India, it will be absolutely suicidal for Bhutan to give in to Indian pressure. To allow India to build road from Tawang into Trashigang would tantamount to Bhutan refuting the Chinese claim upon Tawang and rest of Arunachal Pradesh. Bhutan is not a super power like United States and therefore cannot be involved in siding with India against China or vice versa in the territorial disputes of the two giant neighbours. Therefore, it is much more sensible to leave China and India unto their problems than Bhutan getting strangled inbetween. Once all the international boundaries are formally delimited, I for one would love to have highways in all four directions connecting Bhutan to both China and India.
5. Bhutanese lost territorial claims.
It is possible that at one time, Bhutanese sovereign land extended towards the East into Arunachal state further then it is now. Just as it was in the South of Bhutan. But a small weak nation is in no position to make traditional claims though I would prefer a straight boundary line running towards north through Tawang extending from Sakteng's eastern boundary. Unfortunately such a dream cannot be realised. However, what we have now is ours to hold and defend.
6. International funding for Bhutan and Chinese position.
China has never blocked funding to Bhutan from any international source. Most World Bank and Asian Development Bank funding that had come to Bhutan received sound backings from Chinese officials holding key positions in those two financial institution. In the same line, China did not block GEF funding for Sakteng.

7. The Indian and Bhutanese outlook towards Chinese Sakteng position.
I am sure that our Leaders have responded adequately to the Chinese claim of " disputed territory " in regards to Sakteng. But in heart of heart, I do not think it was an arrow pointed towards Bhutan. But for India it is a bombshell of a shocker. When China says there has been no Delimitation Talk with Bhutan in the East, it means China is claiming Arunachal Pradesh as hers. China has not changed her political position on Arunachal Pradesh. I recall Chinese objecting to even Indian PM visiting Arunachal Pradesh. Dalai Lama's visit was also objected to. And likewise, they may have taken the GEF funding case for Sakteng as another opportunity to rub India in the face. For record, China has never objected to our leaders from visiting Sakteng or any other places deemed Bhutanese territory by Bhutan.
8. Does China have territorial designs upon Bhutanese Kingdom?
As far as historical records goes, traditional China had made claims on most of her Southern neighbours including Bhutan. Even Tibet had tried to conquer Bhutan many times. However, the modern China has always respected Bhutanese sovereignty. During 1958 and 1959 when Tibetan refugees poured into Bhutan, Chinese forces never followed them into Bhutanese land. Later in 1962 during Indo- Sino war, when Chinese forces overran Arunachal Pradesh especially the Tawang part and Indian Army retreated through Bhutan, Chinese forces did not invade Bhutan.
Bhutan under the influence of Indian political thinking had thought that China would sweep through Bhutan during both 1959 when Tibetan revolt failed and in 1962 when China thrashed India. But on both occassions, Bhutan was wrong. China never touched Bhutan. There is also a Sino-Bhutan Boundary Treaty of 1998 which is near ditto to 2007 Indo-Bhutan re-defined Treaty of 1949. China has respected Bhutanese sovereign dignity and has never interfered in internal and external affairs of the Kingdom of Bhutan. China has never claimed to be a Protector of Bhutan unlike India which still maintains that Bhutan is a " Protectorate " of India. And continues to interfere in both our internal and external affairs. Even this time during Sakteng hype, Indian media was showing photo of PM Modi of India with Bhutan's former PM Tshering Tobgay. Previously also India media did that after the third General Election in Bhutan. India shows her unhappiness with our Prime Minister Lotay Tshering. A blatant display of political interference and disrespect.
9. The recent flashes of Sino- India border clashes at the Actual Line of Control?
It is a continuation of Indian Army effort to redeem Doklam set back and that of pay backs by China for the same 2017 Doklam betrayal by India. The misadventure of Indian Army at Doklam will keep piling border crisis between China and India. Recent Galwan incident happened because of Doklam. Pangong lake incident happened because of Doklam, Nathula incident happened because of Doklam. And more such incidents will take place. And if Indian Army tries to invade areas recently the Nepalese government declared as hers, PLA might just turn up there. After Doklam shocker, there will be no let up by China as far as her sovereign stakes are concerned.

10. A grave misadventure by Indian Army at Doklam has become cancerous to Sino- India Border trust.
In June, 2017, with the American prodding and naval powers of three nations staking the all vital Strait of Malacca the oceanic highway for China under the pretext of annual Malabar war exercise, the Doklam transgression took place. The Indian Army had boldly walked into deserted Doklam Plateau upon which India had no claim of whatsoever. The Bhutan- China disputed Doklam territory was not manned by Bhutanese or Chinese soldiers. So Indian troops were able to move from their Sikkim border camp into Doklam at their leisure and without opposition. India had over 200,000 strong forces at stand by in Sikkim and at the chicken neck, ready for a short skirmish at Doklam.
But an angry China totally unprepared for a short decisive war at Doklam went for an all out war on all fronts. There was no other choice. The American, Indian and Japanese naval forces at Malabar was pinned down by 13 Chinese naval war ships plus nuclear missile armed submarines. China was prepared to attack India at Arunachal, Ladakh, Sikkim and from the east and west of Arabian Sea. United States did not want a full scale war with China though she designed the strategy to contain China through Indo- Pacific policy centered on Indian role supported by the five eyes and Japan. The quad forces at Malabar could not risk an all out battle with the Chinese naval forces and if China attacked India from both land and sea, WW III was imminent. So America left India stranded alone at Doklam.
Thus abandoned, the Indian government took 72 days and many trips by Shri Subrahmanyam Jaishankar the Indian foreign Secretary and Shri Ajit Doval the Indian National Security Advisor to Beijing to placate China and finally succeeded in extricating the Indian Army forces stranded in Doklam. The Indian Army was allowed to withdraw intact and China established permanent military camp at Doklam.
11. China a nation once burned twice shy with India
The Doklam betrayal was a warning to China that India still harboured the same territorial ambitions that India had tried to achieve through so termed " Forward Policy " that Shri Pandit Nehru the 1st Indian PM adopted during 1950s at the behest of America and Britain. China had to teach Nehru a hard lesson with the 1962 war. After routing the Indian forces the China Army withdrew voluntarily in 1962.
Now that China had been fully alerted by the Doklam transgression, any foolhardy venture of Indian Army may very well meet the same fate that Indian soldiers suffered on the night of 15th June when Indian military launched an attack to take over a hill in the Galwan Valley. It seems the month of June is a favourite Indian Army show of both bravo and humiliation. June, 2017 and June, 2020.
Henceforth, it is expected that China will fortify all international Borders along the Himalyan Ranges and despite United States backing for India, it is unlikely that PLA would brook further nonsense from the Indian Army.
12. Bhutan and India during and after Doklam Shock.
The Doklam shock on Bhutanese top leadership was slow to sink in. But gradually with India's insistence of landing two mountain brigades of Indian Army at Paro and Thimphu, the phantom became visible to Bhutanese leadership. Bhutan was almost Sikkimised. Sorry Sikkim. I realised what was happening when I read Indian media articles concentrating on dangers to Paro and Thimphu from ( invisible ) Chinese forces at Doklam and India ready to air lift two especially trained mountain brigades to defend Bhutan. ( I guess the two mountain brigades were at the core of Indian troops air lifted to Kashmir valley in 2019 when article 370 was scrapped. And every muslim homes in Kashmir including political leaders had fully armed troopers on their door steps ).
The general Bhutanese public was kept in the dark about Doklam by the Bhutanese authority. And therefore, fell victim to Indian media bombardment of Bhutan being " Indian Protectorate" and Indian Army was invading Doklam at the " request of the Bhutan Army" under a " Security Pact". Some gullible Bhutanese citizens and few Indian favourites even played up this Indian tune. But by and large Bhutanese were contemptuous of Indian transgression and public animosity against India was displayed adequately in the social media.
Sure Bhutan issued a " demarche" at the onset ( then went mum ) to China maybe out of confusion but probably to appease the ego of India upon whom Bhutan is fully dependent for trade and transit. That was followed up by a Press Meet by the Bhutanese Ambassador to India Major General Vetsop Namgyal. His Excellency called for maintaining of " Status Quo " at Doklam. The Bhutanese Ambassador in New Delhi is more than a career diplomat.
He spent his whole military career from a 2nd Lieutenant to Major General rank as ADC to the 4th King of Bhutan. He had to know who was the devil that was disturbing the " Status Quo " maintained by Bhutan and China at Doklam. He should have also foreseen the danger of Indian scheme. But I have no idea whether he was able to speak his mind to our Kings. I think PM Tshering Tobgay of Bhutan was blinded by B for B Modi aura.
This public call by the Bhutanese Ambassador in New Delhi was understood by all including China and India as one sided call on China. China deemed it an endorsement by Bhutan to the Indian Army invasion of Doklam. And for the same reason, India was elated with Indian media going wild by the call of " status quo " from the Bhutanese Ambassador. They thought it was a call to China to stop road construction which was the fabricated Indian Army excuse to invade Doklam. Only towards the later half of July 2017, it may have finally dawned upon China and India that Bhutan could have been also calling upon India to vacate Doklam and respect the " status quo " maintained by China and Bhutan.
Frankly, I think Bhutan was of two minds at the start of the transgression. There was confusion, consternation and deafening silence. Not a word to the people from His Majesty the King, Prime Minister or the Opposition leader. The Third King of Bhutan travelled on foot to inform his people about the danger of possible fallout on Bhutan from the Sino- India 1962 war. But in 2017, despite BBS tv& radio reach out, not one leader spoke on Doklam. And main stream Media both Kuensel and BBS tv & radio were kept silent.
Doklam incident ended after 72 days for Bhutanese public in total official silence. Incredible but all so true. Yet the " "Diplomacy of Silence" had the desired effect and result. India could not secure Bhutan's endorsement for the Doklam invasion. The heavy weight Indian delegation of Foreign Secretary and National Security Advisor seems to have failed to convince the Bhutanese Kings on the dangers posed to Paro and Thimphu by the non-existent Chinese Army at Doklam. Thus their goal of air lifting the two mountain brigades to Paro and Thimphu could not be achieved. One thing the Kings of Bhutan have known is that Indian Military will not leave Bhutan if they are allowed in. The reason why the 4th King went into battle Indian Militant Groups in 2003 without accepting Indian Army troops.
Finally, without American miltary backing and in absence of Bhutan's official endorsement of the Indian Army transgression at Doklam, India lost both moral clout in the international arena and the military might to challege China. So a withdrawal was negotiated.
13. The impact of Doklam incident upon Bhutanese Leadership and the People.
Doklam incident finally awakened Bhutan to the absolute dangers of Bhutanese political leaders blindly licking up to Indian leadership. Indo- Bhutan relationship was tested and found distrustful. Hereafter, it can never be same though Bhutan has limited alternatives.
However, Bhutan is secure as long as Bhutan refrains from being a proxy for India. It is unfortunate that India herself is mixing up her own national responsibility with that of playing a role of proxy for America in the Himalayas and in Asia Pacific arena with Japan and Australia toddling along. Personally, I hope and pray that our two giant beighbours China and India get along. It will be good for them, good for South Asia region and Bhutan will benefit greatly. America, Australia, Japan and especially India must also stop interfering into the affairs of Bhutan and China. And India and China should settle Arunachal status without outside interference. And please do not gift the State to us lest Bhutan gets swallowed by the much larger Arunachal Pradesh. Haha! It was always my school time joke that " I fear India and China offering to be part of Bhutan ".
Meanwhile Bhutanese must stand for Bhutan only. And let China and India be unto themselves in other affairs that have nothing to do with Bhutan. All that Bhutan must adhere is to the fact that treacherous friends are more dangerous than declared enemies. At least in case of enemies, one is forewarned.
May Pelden Drukpa protect Bhutan and may peace and prosperity reign in South Asia.

jfy1155 said:

It is the same writer from US News that made a claim that 35 PLA soldiers died in the clash. No major International news media is reporting such claim.

Click to expand...

Yeah I know. My point is that his so called insider info is probably Falungong.