Bold 1. Factually Wrong.
Bold 2. Wrong
Bold 3. Factually Wrong
Refer previous posts.
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
Bold 2. Wrong
Bold 3. Factually Wrong
Refer previous posts.
By now you should know where Dhan Singh Thapa is.
This situation is sort of like the following disagreement between two playground groups - Party A and Party B.
Both parties want to gain total, unilateral access and control of 2 disputed basketball courts. Party A lives right next to the courts. Party B lives a block away but has otherwise equal right to claiming courts.
Party B on day two of disagreements offer Party A one out of the two courts. A refuses offer and prefers to get both. It thinks it lives closer and can monitor them with more members of its group in a more effective manner and so believes that B will relinquish eventually and ignore it seeing as B already has plenty of courts.
Years later, a fight occurs and B dominates both courts but in an effort to prevent the fight from escalating out of control, it moves back to pre-fight positions with the demonstration of military superiority done even when B was arguably at its weakest in its entire history. B thinks A may try re-engaging with all its members so to prevent escalation, this path was proven correct. A did not escalate once B moved back.
Now A is viewing B with some worry. B is many times wealthier and more capable than the past fight. B is also building up towards the courts in dispute. A decides to build up as well with members watching the courts and increased their occupation of the courts much to the displeasure and concern of B. B chooses to respond with a strongly acted statement and occupies both courts by force for a whole year. A tries to displace B's members by pushing them out with superior numbers. It didn't work. B still occupies. After 9 rounds of formal negotiations. A agrees to B's old offer with a difference. A can tell its members that their claims are still on and working but A agrees that it cannot use these courts any longer, it cannot allow its members on either court and in return, B's members will vacate it after a year of sitting on it.
This is just for Pangong. It appears China has not even disengaged in Depsang, Gogra, and Hot Springs yet despite many A members claiming nothing ever even happened there but A leaders and media saying the opposite.
Both parties want to gain total, unilateral access and control of 2 disputed basketball courts. Party A lives right next to the courts. Party B lives a block away but has otherwise equal right to claiming courts.
Party B on day two of disagreements offer Party A one out of the two courts. A refuses offer and prefers to get both. It thinks it lives closer and can monitor them with more members of its group in a more effective manner and so believes that B will relinquish eventually and ignore it seeing as B already has plenty of courts.
Years later, a fight occurs and B dominates both courts but in an effort to prevent the fight from escalating out of control, it moves back to pre-fight positions with the demonstration of military superiority done even when B was arguably at its weakest in its entire history. B thinks A may try re-engaging with all its members so to prevent escalation, this path was proven correct. A did not escalate once B moved back.
Now A is viewing B with some worry. B is many times wealthier and more capable than the past fight. B is also building up towards the courts in dispute. A decides to build up as well with members watching the courts and increased their occupation of the courts much to the displeasure and concern of B. B chooses to respond with a strongly acted statement and occupies both courts by force for a whole year. A tries to displace B's members by pushing them out with superior numbers. It didn't work. B still occupies. After 9 rounds of formal negotiations. A agrees to B's old offer with a difference. A can tell its members that their claims are still on and working but A agrees that it cannot use these courts any longer, it cannot allow its members on either court and in return, B's members will vacate it after a year of sitting on it.
This is just for Pangong. It appears China has not even disengaged in Depsang, Gogra, and Hot Springs yet despite many A members claiming nothing ever even happened there but A leaders and media saying the opposite.
Not factually wrong but certainly open to interpretation. Previous posts had discussed China's approach regarding this.
The situation at F2/3 has been discussed to death.
Refer to previous posts.
Because whatever infra India has behind F4 was already built? Just like China's road from F8 to F5 area is already built and remains?
Now India has stopped building up apparently and China too apparently. I admit this may or may not be true since what is officially said by both may not be done.
India did patrol past F4. China's been offering settlement between F4 and F8 since late 1950s. If China's been happy to draw the border, giving India even more land past F4, how is possible India never patrolled past F4? Give me evidence. Your own Four Star General disagrees and the LAC definition is AT worst for India, running through F4 if not much further. India not only patrolled past LAC and F4, it did so much more than PLA has bothered patrolling according to India's own four star general. According to India's own government, Depsang gogra hs are still disputed and PLA still doing "unfavourable" things to India and its claims. Otherwise why are these even topics of negotiation and why are there still negotiations happening?
Why the need for a 10th negotiation and talks after disengagement at Pangong Lake? If those other points weren't being at least partially occupied by PLA. China might have kept them there to force India to observe its agreement at Pangong and maybe China wants more less obvious concessions from India.
Last edited:
If those areas were as serious as you claim, India would have included them within the same discussions as Galwan and Pangong. It sounds like you want to find an area of the lac where China got a more favorable deal than India, so you are trying to claim Chinese occupation in those areas when satellite images show the buildup by both sides is on opposite ends of the lac.
Since you have so much trust in Indian media, well this is Indian media that claims there is no occupation.
Thiese are just a few examples of infrastructure India built in areas China claimed, that remains after disengagement.
China went in to negotiations HOLDING the absolute prize as unlikely as it is to have kept the prize for good.
How is it that China could even consider giving India free concessions for releasing grip on the prize? It's not. Not only is it now clear that one price India paid for China to release the prize was to agree to not approach it and not patrol it and keep its forces well behind. There might have been other things because even that would be quite a heavy discount for India given by China.
It seems the discount may be an illusion if China is keeping parts of Depsang goga hs etc in return for India leaving Kailash ranges which is actually really a discount India gave China in the past by not disputing it. It seems to me India went in to these talks with China with a bit more honesty than their Chinese counterparts who bargained for way more than really fair and bargained with the intention to settle for what it truly wanted. This is honestly rather cunning of China but certainly they've done the right thing for themselves.
How is it that China could even consider giving India free concessions for releasing grip on the prize? It's not. Not only is it now clear that one price India paid for China to release the prize was to agree to not approach it and not patrol it and keep its forces well behind. There might have been other things because even that would be quite a heavy discount for India given by China.
It seems the discount may be an illusion if China is keeping parts of Depsang goga hs etc in return for India leaving Kailash ranges which is actually really a discount India gave China in the past by not disputing it. It seems to me India went in to these talks with China with a bit more honesty than their Chinese counterparts who bargained for way more than really fair and bargained with the intention to settle for what it truly wanted. This is honestly rather cunning of China but certainly they've done the right thing for themselves.
Exactly what point/position are these on? Can you prove both the map corresponding points with these images AND then prove that these are well within China's claims? From maps, they seem well within India's side.
Galwan river pinned and F4 circled. Maps more or less outline the disputed stretch with dotted undemarcated section.
These small bridges are some of the build up towards disputed zone that China was concerned about. Anyway there's no reason why those can't be there to stay. Just like China's build up behind disputed zone is here to stay. Why is this some Indian victory point?
An interesting theory. Unfortunately, china failed to cross the LAC in Gogra and Depsang and occupy Indian territory as you claim.
- Status