Military situation in the sino-indian border

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sanblvd

Junior Member
Registered Member
People complain about Chinese aggression, but India is worse, they move in 100k Indian people into Sikkim who's population is only 100k as well, then India forced a referendum to join India, and of course under threat it passes. At that time the king of Sikkim request China to send troops to its border, but China was too preoccupied with its own stuff so they refused.

There is also Nepal, India wants Indian in Nepal enjoy special treatment in the constitutions, which Nepal refuses, as the result India blocked Nepal at the worst time possible after the 2015 earthquake.

Then there is of course, Kashmir, over 50,000 people actually been killed since 1980s insurgency, not a word in the "free media" but everyone focus on Tibet when less than 1/1000 of monk BBQ themselves.

There is also the annexation of Goa, which was a official Portuguese Indian territories, India literally roll in and took over, this situation was a bit like HK, China would have easily capture HK in 1949 but it respected the treaty, not so for India.

This Hindu nationalist country is not right, their existence is a danger to all of its neighbors, they cannot be allowed to exist.

India also occupies Arunachal Pradesh (South Tibet), who's population is all Asian Tibetans, India is trying to move thousands of Indians into that area to change the demographics to their favor. While during all of this, they trying to stir up trouble in Tibet and they don't see the hypocrisy

At any single moment, there 30+ armed insurgent separatist movement inside India, China should facilitate and actively give support to all separatist movement to break it apart, a united India is a aggressive expansionist power and a danger to all of its neighbors including China.
 
P

PanAsian

Major
weig2000 said:
Sikkim Stand-Off: China and India Collide in the Himalayas
Indian hegemonism is on the march
by Justin Raimondo Posted on July 07, 2017
Click to expand...

Important link from your article to the following article with additional background information.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Shadows of Sikkim in Crimea
One of the last examples of a successful non-reversed annexation took place in South Asia in the 1970s.

By Ankit Panda
March 18, 2014

A Russia-sponsored referendum vote in the autonomous Ukrainian province of Crimea on March 16 resulted in a strong preference for secession and assimilation into the Russian Federation. Although the results of the referendum are suspect, 96 percent of Crimean ballots were in favor of joining the Russian Federation. The legitimacy of the referendum is under attack by the United States, Europe, and the incumbent government in Ukraine. Although Russia refrained from a unilateral military annexation, the conditions under which the referendum took place essentially amounted to a Russian occupation. Against the backdrop of this state of affairs in Crimea, it’s worth examining one of the last non-reversed annexations and an often forgotten case in the modern history of South Asia: India’s annexation of Sikkim.

While the geopolitical dynamics are obviously vastly different, there are a few similarities to be found in India’s annexation of Sikkim and Russia’s impending annexation of Crimea. Sikkim is today a constituent state of sovereign India, but joined the Indian union in 1975 following a series of events remarkably similar to what has just transpired in Crimea. Traditionally a semi-autonomous Tibetan kingdom, Sikkim fell under the purview of the British Empire in the 18th century. Following its independence in 1947, Sikkim operated as a small, independent Himalayan monarchy (known as the Chogyal monarchy as per its Tibetan heritage) until its assimilation into India in 1975. Sikkim’s relations with India following the independence of both of those states from the British Empire in 1947 were close. India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru demonstrated great interest in maintaining close ties with Sikkim following independence. In fact, the notion of assimilating Sikkim into India was on the mind of India’s leaders immediately after independence. Both Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel acknowledged the value of including Sikkim as a special protectorate within the Indian union and worked with Chogyal Tashi Namgyal of Sikkim to attain that status. According to the Indian government’s history of Sikkim, “this was in face of stiff resistance from local parties like Sikkim State Congress who wanted a democratic setup and accession of Sikkim to the Union of India.” As a protectorate, India controlled Sikkim’s external affairs, defense, and communications — a marked difference from the Crimean case today.

The Sikkim State Congress Party would later play a major role in deposing Chogyal Tashi Namgyal’s son, Palden Thondup Namgyal. Tashi Namgyal died in 1963 and following his death the anti-monarchy movement within Sikkim gained traction. In 1955, with Indian assistance, Sikkim established a state council, allowing for constitutional democracy under the Chogyal, who remained Head of State and monarch of the kingdom. Ultimately, in 1973, pro-India protests broke out in Sikkim and the state council requested formal Indian intervention. In 1975, Sikkim’s Prime Minister requested that the state be fully assimilated into India as a state, following which the Indian Army moved into Gangtok (the Sikkimese capital), disarmed the Chogyal’s palace guards, and established control of the state. Following India’s move into Sikkim, a plebiscite among the 59 percent of Sikkimese residents entitled to vote resulted in 97.5 percent of them voting to join India (a result that some Sikkimese argue was a product of Indian duress and manipulation).

India’s annexation of Sikkim involved a plebiscite, similar to the one in Crimea on Sunday. Unlike the Crimean case, India did not intervene in Sikkim on the basis of protecting any particular ethno-linguistic group and did so on the request of an arguably representative body. More significantly, with the exception of the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights, India’s annexation of Sikkim remains one of the few annexations that stuck and was not reversed in recent history (one can include China and Tibet in the 1950s in this count as well). Similar to the West’s protests over Crimea today, China immediately protested India’s annexation of Sikkim and brought it to the attention of the international community (which ultimately did nothing). In 2003, China acknowledged Sikkim as part of India in exchange for an Indian acknowledgment that Tibet was part of China. Today, the India-China border at Sikkim is the only open border between the two neighbors. Should Crimea accede to the Russian Federation, we will have another case of annexation that will likely go without reversal.
Click to expand...
 
Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
I guess there will be no meeting between Xi and Modi
The chinese is right what for ?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


India's foreign ministry has denied reports that China had "cancelled" a meeting between President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hamburg.

Spokesman Gopal Baglay told reporters that a meeting with Mr Xi had never been on Mr Modi's agenda.

China's foreign ministry had said the atmosphere was not right for a meeting.

Troops have been facing off along one stretch of India and China's shared border along the Himalayas.

Indian media reports said that despite the government's position that a meeting between the two sides was never planned, China conclusively ruling it out was being seen as a hardening of its stance.

A potential meeting between Mr Xi and Mr Modi was being seen as a way of defusing tensions.

Both countries have been engaging in sharp rhetoric, after Indian troops stopped Chinese engineers from extending a border road through a plateau known as Doklam in India and Donglang in China.

The plateau, which lies at a junction between China, the north-eastern Indian state of Sikkim and Bhutan, is currently disputed between Beijing and Thimphu.

India supports Bhutan's claim over it.

It is one of the longest stand-offs between the two sides since a war in 1962, where China defeated India.
 
C

cyan1320

Junior Member
PiSigma said:
Tanks can't travel far by themselves because tracks are not designed for extensive use. Going 500km by itself would be crazy amount of maintenance. That's why they are transported by truck.
Also tracks damage regular road surface, changan avenue is reinforced for that reason. Tracks at high speeds like 50km+ would rip up the concrete or asphalt of regular roads.

There is a reason why light tanks are invented. For mountainous areas where logistics are hard.

Assembly of tanks on site, then why have tanks at all? Just bring towed artillery and be done with it. At least you won't need giant cranes which would be a pain to move. Tanks only come in two pieces, chassis and turret.
Click to expand...

Thanks, insightful :)
 
O

Orthan

Senior Member
This is an article from firstpost.com that mentios that china and india have too much to lose in a war.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


However it could be also said that despite china´s problems, india has even (far) more serious internal problems than china (kashmir, maoist rebels, i dont know if anyone else).
Also, its defence industry compared to china is small, not to mention serious problems with the equipment (including blowing up of a submarine in port, constant losses of aircraft due to accidents).
Even if china´s military is untried since 1979, india´s military is also largely untried since the war with pakistan in 1971. Does the indian army suffer from corruption? The indian army is much different from 1962, and the chinese army is even more different. Also AFAIK china has a territorial land dispute with india and butan and who else? Its not 18 nations. I had never heard that cambodia was part of china.

What do you think of that article?
 
Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Anyone who wrote Cambodia is part of China , cannot be trusted . The article is badly written mish mash of untrue and irrelevant fact
Any way this video show clearly the area in dispute is within Chinese held area and they are building road . It is strategic since it is on high plateau ground. No wonder the opfor is worried
The yellow line is the borderline. The blue line is the road
 
SteelBird

SteelBird

Colonel
You're worried is your own problem, I built roads in my own land is my problem. You don't have rights to stop me just because the road gives strategic advantage.

I think India is sure that China does not dare to go war at this stage that they are so daring. The 1962 didn't give them enough lesson that they want to try another and believe that victory should be on their side.

All out war is impossible but small skirmish should recall their memory.
 
S

sanblvd

Junior Member
Registered Member
SteelBird said:
You're worried is your own problem, I built roads in my own land is my problem. You don't have rights to stop me just because the road gives strategic advantage.

I think India is sure that China does not dare to go war at this stage that they are so daring. The 1962 didn't give them enough lesson that they want to try another and believe that victory should be on their side.

All out war is impossible but small skirmish should recall their memory.
Click to expand...

Exactly, US placing weapons in Guam is a big danger to China, you don't see Chinese go invade Guam, India's excuse is literally no excuse, no nation has the right to invade another nation just because you don't like what they are doing ON THEIR OWN TERRITORY.

But I don't know why China is dragging this out for sooo long, the Indians have the incentive to drag this long enough that it actually became a "dispute" if China waits for too long then it would admit this will became a "dispute"

I hope China is taking their sweet time by position their heavier assets into Tibet.
 
Y

Yodello

Junior Member
Registered Member
i
sanblvd said:
Exactly, US placing weapons in Guam is a big danger to China, you don't see Chinese go invade Guam, India's excuse is literally no excuse, no nation has the right to invade another nation just because you don't like what they are doing ON THEIR OWN TERRITORY.

But I don't know why China is dragging this out for sooo long, the Indians have the incentive to drag this long enough that it actually became a "dispute" if China waits for too long then it would admit this will became a "dispute"

I hope China is taking their sweet time by position their heavier assets into Tibet.
Click to expand...

I am seriously puzzled as to what the Chinese have to gain by dragging things along. The longer this drags out, the stronger India begins to look and the weaker China appears to be. Nations around the region are watching and this may drastically reduce the perceived strength of the Chinese and its overall standing in the region. How can they let the Indians blatantly trespass onto their territory and create such a big fuss? Yes, the Indian army holds the High ground, but is that all there is to it? If being able to hold the high ground alone is enough to deter a would-be so-called Superpower than I guess myself and the countries in the region will start assessing the capabilities of the PLA and deduce that despite all the hype about all the new weaponry in its arsenal, the PLA is a paper tiger and not really a military that is capable of fighting and winning in a real battle. I fell that the Chinese are being overly cautious, and that overly cautious nature is the reason why I feel China will never be a military Superpower despite all the High-Tech weaponry on display. It is not the hardware alone that makes a Superpower. They simply lack the bravado to catapult them into being a true Superpower. Imagine anyone stepping into US or Russian held territory, the trespasser would be crushed and swatted without mercy, damn what the International Community may say. The Chinese seems too cautious of what the International community would say, and they bind themselves into a strait-jacket. Hardly Superpower material.
 
Last edited:
D

delft

Brigadier
Orthan said:
What do you think of that article?
Click to expand...
In a conflict about the chicken neck the supply route of India would be a few hundred kilometres, China's supplies would come over thousands of kilometres and the last part over the road now being built. The quality of the Indian army must be extremely low if this road is of strategic concern to India. So the article is clearly BS. The background is more likely India offering itself as part of US confrontation to China.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top