Ladakh Flash Point

Status
Not open for further replies.

kahi

New Member
Registered Member
China is doing to India what she did to Vietnam throughout the 80s - applying relentless pressure along the border and preventing its economic development. This ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Vietnam finally coming to their senses. The Americans will fare better than the Soviets but history has shown that American support is notoriously fickle.
 

Bright Sword

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don't disagree with your assessment. However, being a neighbor to one of these two superpowers sharing a border paints a whole different picture to how one would play this hand. Even if you were to be a vassal, to be a vassal against your neighbor brings calamity to the country in ways that would not be if their weren't sharing a border. This is a reason that no matter how the Russians tilt, they would at worst be neutral and would not be China's enemy.
Another factor to consider is the fact that two superpowers is inherently unstable. As time marches on, it is highly highly unlikely that the two superpowers would remain static in relation to the other. One of these two will zoom past the other and become the much bigger power. If you are vassal to your neighbor, at least you get to stay in tact as a nation even if your neighbor loses, since the large ocean would mean that it would take a lot more for the other superpower to come mess with you. If you were a vassal against your neighbor and you made the wrong bet, you will be dismembered when your superpower goes away to the other side of the Pacific.
When the time comes, you can switch sides, but it would not be possible to erase the memory. At that time, it would be contingent on your neighbor to either accept your surrender, or decide that it was better to see you broken up.
India's Sun Tsu is the sage Chanakya who wrote the norms of warfare abd diplomacy termed Chanakyaniti.

Per the rules of Chanakyaniti India is trying to have "one way " alliances where the more powerful partner in the alliance is duped into providing support to the junior partner but gets nothing in return. In the past India has successfully followed the Chanakyaniti principle when it signed the Treaty of Friendship and Security with the Soviet Union. In the short run India benefited enormously because the Soviet Union armed India with the state of the art weapons used by its own armed forces , from Mig 25 Foxbats to Foxtrot class submarines.
The Soviet Union directly intervened as India's partner in the 1971 Pakistan Civil War warding off US pressure on India. The Soviet Union sent guided missile cruisers and nuclear submarines to defend India from a punishing strike by a US Navy task force ( 7th Fleet). Soviet personnel manned Tu-16 "Moss" AWACS ensured India maintained air superiority over Pakistan and 30 Soviet armored divisions on the Chinese border as a "cocked fist" ensured China would not come to Pakistan's aid.
India easily won the war on the Eastern front, though Pakistan managed to hold on to its portion of Kashmir in a bloody stalemate in the West.
If the Soviets thought the "mutual" defense treaty was of any benefit to them, they were sadly mistaken. Soviet KGB Major General Kim Philby ( a defector from the British MI-5), and an expert on South Asia had warned the defense staff before the Afghan operations in 1980 that Pakistan must be overrun simultaneously along with Afghanistan if there is to be any chance of success. Kim Philby suggested an invasion of Pakistan from the east by India, even as the Soviet Union would roll into Pakistan's western region across Afghanistan. The Western powers would no longer have a base to manage an anti-Soviet resistance , and India would realize its long cherished dream of taking Pakistan and Kashmir. The Soviet Union would have access to the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf. China would be contained forever. If the operation was conducted swiftly it would all be over in three weeks like the formation of Bangladesh. It was a good plan with one flaw.
India chickened out and let down the Soviet Union. As long as Pakistan existed controlling Afghanistan was impossible ( a fact that the Americans found out years later).
Kim Philby had suggested postponing the Afghan operations until sufficient forces could be brought to bear for the Soviet Union to take Pakistan alone. This would need significant manpower and the Soviet Union needed Warsaw Pact or Cuban troops. Against Kim Philby's advice the Afghan invasion was launched, and the rest is history.
The Soviet Union collapsed and in another play of Chanakyaniti India switched sides to court the USA though even as late as 1991 when the Soviet Union had all but collapsed India backed the Saddam Husain regime in Iraq during operation Desert
Storm.
Post 9/11 India refused to fight on behalf of the USA both in Afghanistan and Iraq but still got huge favors in trade and arms supplies.
At this time India expects the USA to help it exactly the way the Soviet Union did for three decades. India's only adversary was a weakened and fractured Pakistan.
The difference here is that the stakes are much higher. China is no Pakistan and the USA is no Soviet Union.
Let's see how the Chanakyaniti works this time.
 

hashtagpls

Senior Member
Registered Member
China is doing to India what she did to Vietnam throughout the 80s - applying relentless pressure along the border and preventing its economic development. This ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Vietnam finally coming to their senses. The Americans will fare better than the Soviets but history has shown that American support is notoriously fickle.
i sincerely hope we also get the arming and training of Assamese and Manipuris and the de facto severing of India's north east from the rest of the subcontinent.
 

Sardaukar20

Captain
Registered Member
India's Sun Tsu is the sage Chanakya who wrote the norms of warfare abd diplomacy termed Chanakyaniti.

Per the rules of Chanakyaniti India is trying to have "one way " alliances where the more powerful partner in the alliance is duped into providing support to the junior partner but gets nothing in return. In the past India has successfully followed the Chanakyaniti principle when it signed the Treaty of Friendship and Security with the Soviet Union. In the short run India benefited enormously because the Soviet Union armed India with the state of the art weapons used by its own armed forces , from Mig 25 Foxbats to Foxtrot class submarines.
The Soviet Union directly intervened as India's partner in the 1971 Pakistan Civil War warding off US pressure on India. The Soviet Union sent guided missile cruisers and nuclear submarines to defend India from a punishing strike by a US Navy task force ( 7th Fleet). Soviet personnel manned Tu-16 "Moss" AWACS ensured India maintained air superiority over Pakistan and 30 Soviet armored divisions on the Chinese border as a "cocked fist" ensured China would not come to Pakistan's aid.
India easily won the war on the Eastern front, though Pakistan managed to hold on to its portion of Kashmir in a bloody stalemate in the West.
If the Soviets thought the "mutual" defense treaty was of any benefit to them, they were sadly mistaken. Soviet KGB Major General Kim Philby ( a defector from the British MI-5), and an expert on South Asia had warned the defense staff before the Afghan operations in 1980 that Pakistan must be overrun simultaneously along with Afghanistan if there is to be any chance of success. Kim Philby suggested an invasion of Pakistan from the east by India, even as the Soviet Union would roll into Pakistan's western region across Afghanistan. The Western powers would no longer have a base to manage an anti-Soviet resistance , and India would realize its long cherished dream of taking Pakistan and Kashmir. The Soviet Union would have access to the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf. China would be contained forever. If the operation was conducted swiftly it would all be over in three weeks like the formation of Bangladesh. It was a good plan with one flaw.
India chickened out and let down the Soviet Union. As long as Pakistan existed controlling Afghanistan was impossible ( a fact that the Americans found out years later).
Kim Philby had suggested postponing the Afghan operations until sufficient forces could be brought to bear for the Soviet Union to take Pakistan alone. This would need significant manpower and the Soviet Union needed Warsaw Pact or Cuban troops. Against Kim Philby's advice the Afghan invasion was launched, and the rest is history.
The Soviet Union collapsed and in another play of Chanakyaniti India switched sides to court the USA though even as late as 1991 when the Soviet Union had all but collapsed India backed the Saddam Husain regime in Iraq during operation Desert
Storm.
Post 9/11 India refused to fight on behalf of the USA both in Afghanistan and Iraq but still got huge favors in trade and arms supplies.
At this time India expects the USA to help it exactly the way the Soviet Union did for three decades. India's only adversary was a weakened and fractured Pakistan.
The difference here is that the stakes are much higher. China is no Pakistan and the USA is no Soviet Union.
Let's see how the Chanakyaniti works this time.
So India wanna play Chanakyaniti to scam Uncle Sam into fighting China and dying for India. While at the same time Uncle Sam is scamming India to fight China and dying for Uncle Sam. This would be brilliant for China.

It'll be interesting to see how these two play the game of "you go first" to provoke China into a war.
 

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
Let's see how the Chanakyaniti works this time.

Here's a different question: How has it worked since it was written, in the 3rd century BCE?

How many of those centuries did India spend as a conquered entity? The city in which this 'grand Indian strategist' was born, isn't even in India anymore. (It's in the still-conquered territory of Pakistan, near where I was born :p) Pakistan's mere existence is a perpetual reminder of their failure. This is why they will never play nice with us. Even many Pakistanis don't understand this fact, and they continue to want 'peace' with India, which has never reciprocated our gestures, starting with the moment of independence in 1947, where they immediately screwed us over (like literally on Day Zero.)

And why? Because of their own emotional insecurity. It is not something to be reasoned with. It is an irrationally neurotic pathology. This is the perennial problem of 'Indian' identity. They try to look back and find some glorious history to coalesce a basis of identity, but can't come up with anything truly unifying. If they were smart, they would use this historical opportunity (post '47) to form some new identity from scratch, and to their credit, they did try (some weird fusion of 'hindu'+communist+democratic curry dish), but it didn't work out so well, so now, the likes of nazi-inspired BJP/RSS are going backwards, to revive something that has already proven to be a total failure. This is why I think 'India' has no future as a unified political entity.
 
Last edited:

Bright Sword

Junior Member
Registered Member
So India wanna play Chanakyaniti to scam Uncle Sam into fighting China and dying for India. While at the same time Uncle Sam is scamming India to fight China and dying for Uncle Sam. This would be brilliant for China.

It'll be interesting to see how these two play the game of "you go first" to provoke China into a war.
As an alternative India would want a repeat of 1971, except this time the target is West Pakistan instead of East Pakistan ( now Bangladesh) and the USA is India's "Soviet Union ".
A US "cocked fist " on China in the SCS, and US electronic data control, early warning systems and advanced weapons will ensure China does not help Pakistan.
The USA will avenge its defeat in Afghanistan and India will get Kashmir and most of Northern Pakistan including severance of the CPEC.
The object is to force China into a choice in protecting its productive eastern coastline or protecting CPEC and Pakstan from India, It is assumed that as in 1971 China will be pragmatic.
 

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
As an alternative India would want a repeat of 1971, except this time the target is West Pakistan instead of East Pakistan

Yes, that's indeed their fantasy. What they forget, is that the fracture of "East/West" Pakistan was due to geography and internal politics, not India's military prowess. Even in '71 India won no victories on the Western Front, when our entire military was in disarray. Three major wars they've fought with a country 1/3rd their size and Pakistan is still standing, having actually conquered more Indian territory and having held it since the first war. So let these Nazi-wannabes come and fight us again. We gave them ample opportunity last year, but they backed down.

What is much more likely to happen (rather than Indian fantasies) is the nightmare scenario which is predicted by analysts like Sawhney, in the 2030 timeframe. So let them keep dreaming, while we get to actual work.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top