Wikipedia

Talk:Sino-Indian War/Archive 1

< Talk:Sino-Indian War
Latest comment: 19 years ago by Lastklim in topic [Title]
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

I don't know... it sounds strangely like the French and Indian War to me... except it was faught almost exactly on the other side of the world! I know both are established names, but it just seems wrong. What about the French and Native American war? Or French and (whichever tribe[s] or federation of tribes the French faught) war?--Node 22:11, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify... I'm not proposing moving one article to a different name, I'm just proposing that it is confusing but we can't do much about it.--Node 22:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The French and Indian War was not fought between the French and the Indians. It was fought between the French and the British. The Indians were on the side of the French. Well, most of the Indians were anyway. -- Dreiss2 2:19, 21 July 2004 (UTC)

rv blanking Edward 18:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Obviously the Chinese people who post here will favour their country even though China was responsible for this war. China started the war by attacking India 10 years after it had invaded Tibet. India was fighting a war of self defence against China. India is not a militaristic nation by nature as it is a Hindu nation and Hinduism is a religion of peace. However, attacks from foes such as China and Pakistan have compelled India to build up its armed forces. India did not provoke China in any way as they launched the first strike.

To User:69.196.113.86, author of the above paragraph and of consistent POV additions to the article: your additions are not acceptable in Wikipedia, because of their major lack of neutrality. That's why they have been systematically reverted. I am now protecting this article page. If there is something that you would like to add to the article, just post it on this talk page, and if it is NEUTRAL then it will be inserted into the article and the page protection will be removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to make political statements. If you need to learn more about the policies, have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. olivier 16:26, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


Comment by Vedant

Oh ofcourse and supporting the Chinese is neutral. Wikipedia sure has an interesting view on neutral statements.

Lets see, India deployed forces north of the McMahon Line - Where is this from? A Chinese propaganda site? They sure have a lot of them. Afterall, they have to allow some internet websites you know, cant block too many search engines and sites which have a view which doesn't agree with the Communist party.

Hmm... The Chinese invasion of Tibet. I mean, they only killed a few thousand of them and displaced about 10 million of them. Go check any website (ofcourse, it cant be Xinhua news agency...). Indeed, Tibet was "liberated" by Chinese troops who were "invited" into China (for what, a party?).

Indian territorial acquisitions - So its okay for China to invade Tibet but illegal for India to take control of territories which belonged to it centuries before the British came. Yes, perfectly NEUTRAL isn't it?

Chinese were reacting to Indian provocations huh? Considering India grounded its airforce during this war because they were afraid that the Chinese would attack their cities with their airforce, I doubt they really wanted to provoke China. Ofcourse, this is a NEUTRAL site isn't it? We don't want to present any facts that support India. Afterall, we don't want to look at the Indian side, only the Chinese side.

Also, you say this was a border dispute? I say it was a "land grab". Information from Chinese, U.S., Indian and other sources reveal that China had begun transferring artillery, planes, and troops from its other fronts to the Indian front before operation ONKAR had even begun. Ofcourse, the Chinese were defending themselves... sure...

India began to actively patrol the LOAC in the 1980s and it was responsible for causing a crisis... Oh, I suppose India just felt like starting another war. Ofcourse even though the Chinese deployed 400,000 troops in the region before India started actively patrolling the LOAC. What a NEUTRAL view of things huh? Blame the Indians right? Perfectly allright...

And ofcourse, China can be trusted. No problem, Tiananmen square, what was that? Never heard of it. The Chinese government seems to think so but I doubt the people who witnessed agree if any of them are still alive...

Oh and Mao Zedong didn't go around killing any nationalists? Hmm.... The West seems to think he did a pretty good job of it. Afterall, its a little hard to get away with killing 20 million people isn't it?

Its too bad the stupidity and blindness of a Chinese leader can lead to the deaths of 4,000 Indians and 3,000 Chinese...

NEUTRAL SITE HUH?

I strongly suggest Wikipedia question the validity of the Chinese statements. However, if Wikipedia responds by locking the page when the truth is posted on a site, what does that have to say about neutrality?

Neutrality: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Many articles are unfortunately lacking neutrality, and contributors are invited to correct this lack of neutrality. This being said, it does not help to revert a potentially biased statement by another biased statement, as has been done repeatedly with this article.
Wikipedia as an entity: Wikipedia is the result of the work of thousands of people collaborating openly. Everybody is invited to do so while following the paramount rule of the Neutral Point Of View. There is no "Wikipedia thinks that" or "Wikipedia did not question that", just people who wrote certain things and other people who have amended these things over time.
Page protection: I have protected (blocked edits of) this page temporarily, following the guidelines of Wikipedia:Protection policy, which were themselves the result of a collaborative and open work. As I have mentioned above, the reason for the page protection is that your additions were not neutral and have been systematically reverted by various users.
Moving forward: if you want to correct some lack of neutrality in this article and add some information, you are welcome to do so. But please avoid making blatantly biased statements, or you will face the risk of having the rest of the community discount the value of all your contributions. It is not the "view of Wikipedia" but rather the reaction of the community of contributors working of this project, spending a lot of time on it, and willing to ensure its quality. Here is my suggestion: I am pasting the article below, so you can make changes directly to it. Feel free to discuss point by point. Once an agreement will be found, we will move the amended article to its page and things will resume to normal. Thank you. (Note: the article contains links to other articles within Wikipedia, and it usually makes sense to keep them while editing an article - see Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wikipedia links) for more information) olivier 06:34, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I have just come across the article and I believe you are clearly being biased in this discussion, Olivier. The correct way to resolve an issue of bias would be to eliminate all contested aspects of the article now on the front page, allow both sides to fairly correct it, and then institute the changes when all controversies have been resolves. Right now, you automatically allow one side's supporters to win by default, and it is in their interest to continue claiming objections to the other side's corrections, no matter how objective they might be.

I am sad to say that clearly, you are biased, and you are an example of the reason why this Wikipedia will never be able to reach its full potential.

Jason

Below is the draft of the revised article. Please make your changes here while the page is protected. Once an agreement will be reached, this revised article will be moved to the article page.

Article

The Sino-Indian war was a short border war between India and the People's Republic of China (PRC), the world's two most populous countries, which took place in late 1962. It was triggered by a dispute over the Himalayan border in the Aksai Chin.


Causes of the War

The short Sino-Indian War was triggered by a dispute over the Himalayan border in the Aksai Chin region. The two countries had formerly had fairly good relations through most of 1950's, and had even agreed on the famous "Five Principles of Co-existence" in 1954. However, border tensions had begun to surface in about 1956, and Chinese development in the Himalayas did nothing to quiet them.

Aiming to consolidate its hold on Tibet, China began developing infrastructure in the Himalayan region. A ring road was constructed that led to Tibet, and from there via the Karakorum Range to Sinkiang and Mongolia before looping back to China. The Ladakh region, located in the disputed Askai Chin region of Kashmir, lay in the path of the road. The most viable alternate route available had been through the harsh Takla Makan desert, a location considered less than desirable by the Chinese. To justify their construction through the disputed area, China published maps showing that Aksai Chin belonged to China and publicly rejected the McMahon Line, which is claimed by India. The Chinese hoped to shore up their claims by pointing to the fact that China did not sign the Simla Conference agreement on the border. When India discovered the road in October 1958, it raised a vociferous public and diplomatic outcry.

After the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indian government adopted a policy of forward military posts in the areas bordering China. Since the road network was poor and Indian deployment was spread over a large area, logistics were difficult to maintain. China reacted to this deployment angrily, stepping up its criticisms of India's border and land claims. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru relied on US diplomatic support to maintain his position against China's claims. However in October 1962, US attention was focused on the Cuban Missile Crisis with Soviet Union. This distracted the Kennedy Administration and weakened Nehru's diplomatic position.

The War

Indian and Chinese units were in close contact throughout September; however, hostile fire was infrequent. On September 8, 1962, a 60-strong (misreported as 600) People's Liberation Army (PLA) unit surrounded one of the Indian forward posts at Dhola on the Thagla Ridge, three kilometers north of the McMahon line. Nehru was attending a Commonwealth Prime Minister's conference in London, and when told of the act, told the media the Army had been instructed to "free our territory." However, Nehru's directives to Defense Minister Krishna Menon were unclear, and the response, codenamed Operation LEGHORN, was slow to move. By the time an Indian battalion reached the Thagla Ridge on September 16, Chinese units controlled both banks of the Namka Chu River. The day after, India's Chief of the Army Staff Kaul ordered that Thagla Ridge be retaken.

On September 20, a firefight developed at one of the bridges on the river, killing nine Chinese and Indian soldiers.

On October 12, Nehru proclaimed India's intention to drive the Chinese out of Indian territory. On October 14, Indian defence minister Krishna Menon called for fighting China to the last man and the last gun.

Hostilities formally began on October 16, 1962. For their part, the Chinese claimed they were "responding to Indian provocations."

The Chinese percieved the Indian response as a threat to their sovereignty and responded to Menon's words on Oct 20, 1962, by launching two major coordinated attacks 1,000 km apart in the Chip Chap Valley in Ladakh and on the Namkachu River. After taking control of a substantial portion of the disputed territory, Chinese forces made an offer for talks on October 24. India rejected this offer and tried to regroup during the lull in the fighting.

Indian resistance had been determined but feeble. The Indian deployment was spread over a large area. Logistics were difficult to maintain, since the road network was poor. Many Indian units required airlift for resupply. In addition, many deployments were at altitudes over 14,000 feet, which required special high-altitude equipment and conditioning. The Indian "jawans" (soldiers) were also not well supplied or trained for mountain combat.

By November 18, the PLA had penetrated close to the outskirts of Tezpur, Assam, a major frontier town nearly fifty kilometers from the Assam-North-East Frontier Agency border. Due to logistical problems, the PLA did not advance farther and on November 21 declared a unilateral cease-fire. The United States Air Force flew in massed supplies to India in November, 1962, but neither side wished to continue hostilities. The PLA however did not withdraw to the positions it occupied before the war. Therefore, 43,000 sq. km. of territory claimed by India is still under Chinese control.

Results of the War

India's defeat in 1962 led to an overhaul of Indian Army in terms of doctrine, training, organisation and equipment, in addition to the resignation of Defence Minister Menon. Although the Indian Army's defeat by the Chinese was a national humiliation, the nation reacted to the '62 war with an unprecedented surge of patriotism. The main lesson India learned was that it could not expect strong, unconditional backing from its allies in times of crisis and that military self-sufficiency and efficiency are the keys to forming an assertive national defense. India's policy of weaponization via indigenous sources and self-sufficiency was thus cemented. National sovereignty, it would affirm, could not come at the expense of becoming a client state of any superpower or by joining any military alliance with, or under them.

In the aftermath of the 1962 war, the Indian government decided to assert stronger control of several territories that they saw as a source of espionage and resupply to potential enemies. Many Indians regard the current Chinese territorial control as an illegal occupation, and so proposals to formalize the border at the Line of Actual Control have proven impossible to implement. However, neither the Indian nor the PRC government appear very interested in disturbing the status quo, and the disputed boundary is not considered a major flashpoint now. However, in the 1980s, both India and China began to actively patrol along the LAC, causing a regional crisis.

In the early '80s, following a new paradigm shift in the Indian military, it was decided that the Army was to actively patrol the Line of Actual Control. Friction began to ensue over the Chinese occupation of the Sumdorong Chu pasturage, lying north of Tawang. The media, catching wind of the situation, gave it national prominence, and an angry exchange of official protests between the Indian and Chinese governments followed. Adding to the bickering, a bill was passed creating the state of Arunachal Pradesh, a territory that China claims in its entirety.

The military re-occupied Hathung La ridge, across Namka Chu, twenty-five years after vacating it. Army chief K. Sundarji airlifted an entire brigade to nearby Ximithang, alarming the Chinese. The Indian government initially flinched at a tough official diplomatic response from Beijing, but stood firm at the insistence of the army. The result, paradoxically, was a thaw. In 1993 and 1996, the two sides signed the Sino-Indian Bilateral Peace and Tranquillity Accords, an agreement for maintaining peace and tranquillity along the LAC. Ten meetings of a Sino-Indian Joint Working Group (SIJWG) and five of an expert group to determine where the LAC lies have taken place. Despite continuing ambiguity and overlapping territorial claims, some strides forward have been made. For example, in a recent round of discussions, India offered official recognition of Tibet as an "autonomous Chinese province." In return, the Chinese made it clear that on their official maps, Sikkim will be shown as Indian territory.

See also

Please post new comments below. Thanks. olivier 06:34, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

2 comments unrelated to the content: olivier 11:32, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

2 hints at discussions about content: olivier 11:32, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Vedant: It doesn't seem to me like anybody is unhappy with the revised article posted above. Why not make it official?

1 comment about a quick overview of the war: --Andylkl 16:02, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • May I suggest adding an infobox, as in the Falklands War article, containing a brief summary about the war, combatants, strength, casualties and outcome?

The revised article is not factually correct in two places and is probably not neutral in several other places.

1) "To justify their construction through the disputed area, China published maps showing that Aksai Chin belonged to China and pubicly rejected the McMahon Line, which is claimed by India. The Chinese hoped to shore up its claims by pointing to the fact that China did not sign the Simla Conference agreement on the border. "

This strongly implies (if not stating outright) that the PRC claimed the disputed territory and rejected the McMahon Line only as a pretext for invasion - and that it did not reject the McMahon Line earlier.

Neither government claiming the governance of China, the PRC or the Republic of China (Taiwan), have ever recognized this treaty. The ROC did have representatives at this meeting, but did not recognize it. The PRC, to my knowledge, did not have representatives at this 1914 conference.

Also, "The Chinese hoped to shore up its claims..." is bad writing. In light of the other statements that author (Vedant) has made (in previous posts in this discussion), I would find it hard to conclude that this phrasing was not chosen simply to tarnish one side (China).

2) "For more information on the invasion of Tibet, look at the Tibet history section."

Why is an article about the Sino-Indian War over the Ladakh Pradesh/Aksai Chin region referring to "the invasion of Tibet"? If The Ladakh Pradesh/Aksai Chin region that was being fought over was indeed part of Tibet, this fact should be stated and stated clearly.

The "invasion of Tibet" is not relevant in this article unless the disputed region of this war is part of Tibet. Note that the claim of India to the region (which the author, Vedant, almost certainly believes in) is significantly decreased if the region actually is part of Tibet.

3) "The Ladakh region, located in the disputed Askai Chin region of Kashmir, lay in the path of the road."

This connects with the preceding point. To be neutral, one cannot simply and only state "the disputed Aksai Chin region of Kashmir", since the opposing side (China) says that it is part of Tibet (not Kashmir). In a controversial war such as this one, this distinction is very important.

4) This article does not state several facts that both sides agree to - one fact of which would make the PRC look significantly "less awful", for lack of a better way of putting it. My object is not to make the PRC look "less awful" (because it isn't and never was, in my opinion), but to give an accurate portrayal of what really happened. These facts are:

1) The PRC did unilaterally call off an end to the war - and after defeating (not losing to) the Indian troops.

The relevant section in the article reads as follows:

"The United States Air Force flew in massed supplies to India in November, 1962, but neither side wished to continue hostilities. The PLA however did not withdraw to the positions it occupied before the war. Therefore, 43,000 sq. km. of territory claimed by India is still under Chinese control."

The section strongly implies that both sides ended the war.

2) This version of the article also does not deal with the McMahon Line (it is only mentioned once in passing in reference to the location of Indian troops). The previous versions at least deal with it briefly (see the articles). The McMahon Line is the Simla Treaty Line (between Great Britain, occupying India, and Tibet) which India cited to claim the disputed region of Aksai Chin/Ladakh Pradesh. Why is it not included in this article? This line is also actually a very controversial line because the claim was (at least originally) an imperial claim made by Great Britain, and that any "McMahon Line India" would also include Burma, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka (among others). In other words (from the PRC view, which is sparsely represented in this article), how can India use a British Empire line (of questionable legitimacy) to make a controversial claim to a part of the world? Many people (non-PRC people!) would have trouble accepting this treaty. There is also something to be said about Tibet being occupied and conquered by Great Britain not too long before this Treaty (in 1904) - in other words, was it truly an independent state at that time?

These points are relevant because the line was an important part of the claim by one side (India) and that these points (and a real description of the McMahon Line) would significantly impact that claim. I am aware that this is not a forum for discussion; however, I do believe that important and relevant points to the article have been left out of this article. Please do not simply dismiss this section. Apparently, you have only heard from one side until now.

c)I have addressed the first two sections of the article above. The last section of this article (which is nearly half the length of the article) addresses "The Results of the War".

However, the section only addresses the consequences of this war for India. There is not one mention at all of the consequences for the other combatant, China. This section is clearly told from the viewpoint of India only.

d) Links. Three links are given.

One link is one to fairly gruesome picture of " A Chinese plaque placed next to a a dead Indian jawan reads, "Corpse of the Indian Invader.""

Again, one has to wonder if this link supposed to given any reader of this article a negative impression about China or Chinese people (of hatred of Indian people), especially in light of the rest of this article and of the author's comments.


Taken as a whole, it is very clear that this article is not from a neutral standpoint.


joseph 12.22.04

Having just come across this page, I must agree with Joseph above. It seems obvious to me that Olivier, whoever he is, is attempting to maintain his own POV over this article, instead of seeking an objective resolution of the case.

I have always respected the Wikipedia's idealism, but it is clear to me now that as people such as Olivier have the authority to lock their views into this encyclopedia, it is a project doomed to fail.

jason 02.14.05


My mother, her family, and many other Indians of Chinese descent were put in internment camps as suspected spies during this war. It concerns me that this important fact does not appear on this page.

Sean M. 1.25.05

Vedant : China did not withdraw back to positions occupied before the war.

@ Sean M. : While it may have been sad that certain Indians of Chinese descent were placed in internment camps, the same thing happened in the United States, Canada, and Britain during World War II. If you criticize India for this, you'd realize that it was a time of war and India did not want to risk information falling in Chinese hands. I'm also quite sure that the Indian army wouldn't invade a sovereign territory, kill 1.25 million people and claim that it was "liberating" Tibet and also claim that they were "invited" into Tibet. India has never invaded another nation in 3,000 years. India's primary religion Hinduism believe in peace and tolerance of other religions and/or nations. The Indian army would never march into a public square and start opening fire on the croud, killing hundreds (which I might add are their own people) to break up a peaceful protest. Also, I might pose a question : Did China not do the same during the war?

Not only did China detain Indians currently in the country, it also killed surrendering Indian soldiers. Then, Chinese soldiers placed propaganda plaques on dead Indian soldiers claiming that they were "corpses of the Indian invader". It concerns me that the information I just stated doesn't appear on the page.

______________________________________


The information posted on this page is clearly not neutral as there is no proof that states Prime Minister Nehru ordered the Indian army to attack China which is essentially the meaning of the sentence regarding Nehru giving the order to ""free" our territory". Also, no background on the Goa conflict is provided where unarmed Indian protesters were killed after trying to reclaim territory that belonged to ancient India hundreds of years ago prior. If one can justify the invasion of Tibet, where 1.25 million people were killed by the brutal Chinese PLA which was "invited" into Tibet so it could be "liberated" and where the Dalai Lama was forced to sign an agreement legitimizing Chinese Occupation, one can justify the Indian reclamation of Goa. Also, in the state of Goa, the Indian army consolidated its position without bloodshed unlike in the Chinese occupation of Tibet where mass murder took place. Also one must take into consideration the fact that India was a peaceful nation and that it had never invaded another nation in 10,000 years unlike is the case with Imperial China which became bloated with conquest.

Wouldn't the Goa occupation be considered an invasion? It was done by force of arms, against Portuguese opposition. The ease of the occupation of Goa was one of the causes of overconfidence by Nehru's government about the abilities of the Indian Armed Forces. The 1962 war rightly shook up India's military, and this bore fruit in 1965 and 1971.--GABaker

Maybe so however, Portugal conquered and seized Goa which belonged to ancient India. While one could say that China tried to reclaim Tibet, Tibet declared its independence from China during the Chinese Civil War. Not to mention, the Indian army only moved into Goa after Portugese border guards shot unarmed civillians.


The edits you have made clearly are not neutral, but taking on an Indian POV. We should favor neither the Chinese nor Indian views. For example, you changed (However, after the PRC established control over Tibet >>the PRC invaded and annexed). That China established such control is an undisputed fact, but whether it was legitimate is non-NPOV. Saying its legitimate takes on the Chinese POV while saying it is illegitimate is the Tibetan POV. In such instances we should stick the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view (NPOV). Saying that Tibet is an invasion and annexation while the military actions taken to seize Goa from Portuguese control as "reclaimation" is also non-NPOV. When the article discusses the causes of the war, we should include both Indian and Chinese views and motives on the cause of the war. The Chinese reasons did in fact take into account India's military actions in Goa as well as Nehru's statements as one of the causes of war. As far as I know, Nehru did issue such statements. I don't have the source on hand right now but I can try posting it later. Indian views can of course be included also but should not replace Chinese ones, and neither view should be endorsed. In Wikipedia, we should strive for completeness and describing the views of both sides while supporting neither one. Deleting those statements contributes nothing to the article. You also made another deletion, about the Chinese troops withdrawing to their pre-war areas of control. Such a deletion contributes nothing to the article as well. A person seeking information on the article may wish to know about the post-war situation, including the positions of the two armies post war. Lastly, the statement about India never having invaded another country within the last 10,000 years is factually inaccurate. Invasions of other countries have occurred under various empires such as the Mauryan Empire, Gupta Empire, and Mughal Empire. Other examples include kingdoms in Kashmir that annexed formerly independent countries like Ladakh and attempted invasions of Tibet. Another exampe is Goa, which was part of Portugul, so its invasion in India counts as another instance. So therefore I'm reverting some of the recent edits. If you want to contribute to this article in a NPOV manner, I'd be happy to discuss this with you on this talk page. --Yuje 00:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


Saying that Goa was an invasion and Tibet was "establishing control" is also not displaying an NPOV. China did threaten Tibet by stationing an army outside it's borders. It then invaded and forced Dalai Lama to sign an article stating that Communist Chinese troops were invited into Tibet to liberate it. In such case we should consider Tibet an invasion and annexation. I will admit that the Indian army seized control of Goa after Portugese soldiers opened fire on unarmed Indian civillians.

Your statement about the Mughal empire is interesting... The Mughal empire invaded India and was never considered to be a part of India. Also, a retalliation cannot be considered an invasion and the fact remains that India never asserted control over any sovereign nation. India may have attacked in self-defence, but only in self-defence. If you do not have available proof that Nehru made such comments, then why is this unproven information posted?

I would suggest that if Goa is considered an invasion, Tibet should be aswell. After all, disregarding the Tibetan POV also goes against the NPOV clause of wikipedia. (Unless ofcourse you are implying that Tibetan POV is less important than the Chinese... guess that also goes against the NPOV clause :-))

I have no issue with the change on Tibet, only that both sides are treated with regards to NPOV, and including the issues on Tibet and Goa in a consistent manner. I also agree that mention of Tibet is valid, as Tibet factored into their decisions, motives, and policies. As for the quote on Nehru, I didn't have it on my previous terminal, but I have it available now.

Author: CALVIN, James Barnard, Lieutenant Commander, U. S. Navy Title: THE CHINA - INDIA BORDER WAR (1962) Publisher: Marine Corps Command and Staff College Date: April 1984

The text is available online here [1] 

     Thus, the early 1960 diplomatic efforts at settlement or
even compromise, between India and China, were essentially a
total failure.  Talks in late 1963 resulted in complete dis-
agreement; each side even published incompatible reports of
the discussions.

     In 1960, China made a preliminary border settlement with
Nepal.  By the end of 1960, China had also made a boundary
agreement with Burma.  The Sino-Burmese border began not at
the McMahon Line, but eight miles further south; this placed
Diphu Pass--a strategic approach to eastern Assam--in Chinese
territory.  India was outraged and worried.

     But no settlemt or compromise occurred in Sino-Indian
relationships.  China was willing to compromise on NEFA; thus,
eastern Ladakh (Aksai Chin) emerged as the major area of dis-
pute.  With the continued failure of diplomatic efforts, the
the uncompromising attitudes of both sides remained unchanged
until the outbreak of hostilities in 1962.

     By 1961, India had acquired aircraft, helicopters, engi-
neering and other military equipment from the United States
and Russia.  Thus equipped, the Indian army invaded Portugese
Goa in December, 1961.  Goa was rapidly constitutionally in-
corporated into the Indian republic.  Although no real pro-
tests or opposition occurred as a result of this action, the
annexation of Goa reinforced China's view of India as being
expansionistic.

	This foreign military support also encouraged India to
pursue her forward policy in Aksai Chin.  In 1961, India had
purchased eight Antov transports--complete with 40 Soviet
pilots, navigators and mechanics--for use in Aksai Chin.
Russian also supplied India with 24 Ilyushin-14 transports and
Mil'-4  helicopters, capable of lifting men and supplies to
altitudes of 17,000 feet.  By mid-1962, India had also agreed
to buy two squadrons of Soviet MIG jet fighters.  Thus forti-
fied, India pursued a more aggressive foreign policy against
China.

	By the end of 1961, Nehru had sent enough Indian Army
troops into Aksai Chin to establish about  43 posts on the
Ladakh frontier claimed by China.  Many of the Indian outposts
were parallel to, but about 100 miles from, the first Chinese
military road.  However, three of the outposts were near Konga
Pass, in the vicinity of the second Chinese highway.
	
	In August, 1961, China began sending a series of angry
protests to India.  China had one basic arguement:  that Indan
troops had intruded into Chinese territory.  Nehru's response
to Chou's complaints was that his (Nehru's) purpose was to
"vacate the aggression (by the Chinese) by whatever means are
feasible to us. . . . I do not see any kind of peace in the
frontier so long as all recognised aggression is not vacated."6

	The latter half of 1961 brought China and India to in-
creasing confrontations and skirmishes.  Exchanges of fire
became commonplace.  A November confrontation in Chip Chap
Valley left several Chinese soldiers dead; this was followed
by a Chinese withdrawal.  Such "victories" convinced Nehru
that the Chinese would not be assertive and that his forward
policy of outposts and patrols was the correct course for
India.  Despite continuing protests from senior Indian Army
officers that India should first build up forces and logistic
supplies in the frontier before embarking further, Nehru
ordered even more aggressive moves into Aksai Chin.

	Thus, by early 1962, the Chinese leadership perceived
that the Indian government intended to launch a massive attack
against Chinese troops; they apparently believed that India
had decided to go to war over the issue.  China's firm insis-
tence over her territorial rights to Aksai Chin and India's
aggressive forward policy of sending troops into the frontier
would soon bring further confrontations and eventual armed
conflict.

And regarding the claims that India had sent troops north of the McMahon line: 

				Chapter IV

			Summer 1962 Skirmishes

	Well into 1962, Nehru continued to ignore the advice of
his generals about the army's poor state of readiness; he also
continued to assume that China would not or could not assert
herself against India.  Hence, Nehru continued his "forward
policy" of furter extending Indian outposts and border pat-
rols (see Map Eight).

	India's purpose was to pursue the forward policy to drive
the Chinese out of any area New Delhi considered hers.  On
February 4, 1962, the Home Minister declared, "If the Chinese
will not vacate the areas occupied by her, India will have to
repeat what she did in Goa.  She will certainly drive out the
Chinese forces."  The Indian strategy in early 1962 was to
move behind Chinese posts in an attempt to cut off Chinese
supplies. China's reaction any new Indian outpost, thought,
was usually to surround it with superior forces.

	The diplomatic letters and protests continued, usually
totally uncompromising and unproductive.  In January, both
sides accused the other of violating their air space.  A Feb-
ruary 26th Chinese not suggested that maintaining the status
quo of the boundary was the only way to avoid military clashes,
and again suggested  withdrawing the troops of each side twenty
kilometers back.  The note concluded with the statement that
"the door for negotiations is always open."  In fact, China
had already stopped all patrols within twenty kilometers of
the border.  But India again rejected th proposal, and con-
tinued to insist that the Chinese withdraw to behind the In-
dian claim line before there would be any negotiations on the
border question.  In April, Nehru announced that "We do not
want war with China, but that is not within our control.
Therefore we have to prepare for the contingency."1  An April
Chinese letter protested Indian intrusions, and demanded that
India withdraw from the Karakoram area.  On May 14th, the
Indians proposed to allow China to "continue to use the Aksai
Chin road for civilian traffic" if China would otherwise with-
draw from all Indian-claimed territory.  China's reply rejec-
ted the idea but again stated that it was better to resolve
the issue than to fight.  In June, the 1954 Trade Agreements,
including the Five Principles of Coexistence, expired; talks
produced no new trade agreement, and trade representatives
returned home.  Relations between the two countries continued
to deteriorate.

	Throughout the early months of 1962, China had several
external problems, especially the Taiwan Straits Crisis.
Chinese leaders continued to insist that they did not want
war, but that Aksai Chin was clearly Chinese and was stra-
tegically important to the People's Republic.  China began
to commit more border patrols--in reaction to increased border
activity by Indian troops in Spring 1962.  In June, when the
Taiwan Strait situation eased, China's attention returned to
the border situation and she brought more pressure to bear on
New Delhi.  India, too, continued to escalate by establishing
new outposts to "defend Indian territory from further inroads."

	The crisis had brewed for three years.  Despite many
menacing confrontations and endless protests, there had
been very few casualties thus far.  But in July this changed.

	A Gurkha platoon had been sent forward to cut off Chinese
outposts in the Galwan Valley (in Aksai Chin).  On July 10th,
a Chinese battalion surrounded the Indian post, cutting it off
from supplies.  The Chinese were attempting to halt Indian
advances in Ladakh; but India continued to supply the Galwan
Valley outpost by air drop.  New Delhi sent a reinforcing force
toward Galwan Valley, but it was turned back by the Chinese.
India was continuing to move forward in an attempt to pressure
China into withdrawing from the disputed area.

	On July 21st,  there was a skirmish in the Chip Chap Val-
ley.  Two Indian soldiers were wounded, the first since Konga
Pass in 1959.  The Chinese protested, and also accused India
of violating the McMahon Line in NEFA.

	Indeed, General B. M. Kaul, then Chief of the General
Staff, had ordered the establishment of 24 posts along the
McMahon Line.  In June, local Indian commanders had estab-
lished Dhola Post, in Tawang. The relevant issue was that
Dhola Post was one mile north of the McMahon Line, in Chinese
territory even by Indian standards.  On August 4th, Peking
accused  India of violating the McMahon Line (at Dhola), and
of aggression beyond its own claimed border--and therefore
into Chinese territory.

	But Chinese pressure was ineffective.  On August 14th,
Nehru told Parliament that India had three times as many posts
in Ladakh as China; Nehru asked for a free hand to deal with
China, and Parliament gave it to him.

	In August, China improved its combat readiness in NEFA,
Tibet and Sinkiang.  While there was no sign of a manpower
buildup in Tibet, there was construction of ammunition dumps
and shockpiling of ammunition, weapons, and gasoline.

	On September 8th, the Chinese reacted to the Indian out-
post at Dhola.  A Chinese patrol of sixty soldiers--which the
Indian commander reported as 600--moved over and down the Thag
La Ridge, into positions which dominated the Indian post at
Dhola.  The Chinese patrol suggested that local officials meet
to discuss where the border lay.  Orders from Nehru refuded
any discussions and orders the army to relieve the Dhola Post
and force the Chinese back behind Thag La Ridge.  A serious
clash between the sides ensured.  The XXXIII Corps commander,
General Umrao Singh, had protested that driving the Chinese
back behind the Ridge was militarily nonsensical; Singh was
later relieved and replaced by the more compliant General B. M.
Kaul.  Nehru used the Thag La incident to whip up national and
international support.  Further skirmished continued through
September.

	By late September, China had resumed patrols along the
entire border.  On September 20th, another clash occurred at
Chedong, at the junction of India, Bhutan and Tibet.  Both
sides took casualties, including one Chinese officer killed.
The fighting for physical control of disputed land was in-
creasing.

	There were both Indian and Chinese protests about the
Chedong incident:  India accused China of expansionism, and
China warned that there was a limit to her patience and self-
restraint.  Unfortunately for the Indians, Chedong was another
area where China seems to have had legitimate claim.  Many
Indians must have questioned India's actions in Chedong, north
of the McMahon Line (and Nehru's orders to push the Chinese
back even further); pushing military force past India's claimed
boundary clearly made India the aggressor in this and some
subsequent clashes.  Much of the more serious fighting to come
in October was not in the areas which both China and India
claimed, but in areas (Tawang and Walong) where China had a
legitimate claim or where India had pushed beyond the McMahon
Line.

	Sporadic fighting in the Chedong area continued for the
next few weeks, suggesting that India was determined to drive
Chinese forces back.  Now, India seemed unwilling even to dis-
cuss any border issues or proposals.  An October 3rd Chinese
note suggested a meeting to discuss the entire border was met
with a curt Indian refusal.

	On September 26th, General Kaul assumed command of XXXIII
Corps; this Corps was hampered by widely dispursed troop con-
centrations, few weapons, inadequate supplies, and no winter
clothing.  On October 5th, India created a special Border Com-
mand under the command of General Kaul.  Kaul was already in
NEFA, preparing an "all out effort" to expel the Chinese from
Thag La.

'

Now, India has claims of China being an aggressor, but China also have claims of India being an aggressor, and Nehru did at times order actions north of the McMahon line. Mentioning these incidents isn't violating NPOV, nor is mentioning Goa when discussing Chinese involvement in the war, since Chinese leaders apparently did take these in account in their decision.--Yuje 02:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Trust me... China was the aggressor... India can't have aggressed... Indians didn't ever have the guts to do anything that bold.

Results Section: Biased statement on World opinion and political effect of war

I removed this statement as it was biased. "However world view was of the opinion that China was the aggressor and despite the military success it was a political failure for the PRC. " No one knows what the world view was and it depends on whether or not you live in the West vs. Communist countries at the time. Secondly, it was a political success for the PRC. Most 3rd world nations after this war, looked to China as the leader of the third world. kennethtennyson

The opinion statement that u call as biased was quoted in the same external link, which is also used in the article to state that the war was the "largest military conflict at such a high altitude". Moreover your statement that "Most 3rd world nations after this war, looked to China as the leader of the third world." would also be POV by the same logic. First of all, China would at time be in the second world and not third world as u put it, since it was communist. World opinion generally refers to free press which is from the first world or developed countries. communist bloc was only a small part and it now generally accepted that there is was more propaganda than reality as erstwhile communist nations have revealed. If you wish to go by communist propaganda then North Korea is a well off nation. By western free press or any neutral observer standards it is obvious what the ground reality is.Idleguy 06:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the claim that China was a leader in the 3rd world is not wholly inaccurate. The "2nd world" (though it was never made clear which was first and which was 2nd; the term is almost always used only for the third) included the USSR and its strategic allies. China was not one of those, so it, like India, was part of the "3rd world". siafu 14:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not until mid 60s were they regarded as being in the 3rd world more than 2nd world. this war took place a few years before that and before the rift bet. USSR and PRC widened. China failed to take Taiwan by force during the period and was regarded as a setback for China, not as a leader in the region. --Idleguy 14:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Look idleguy, have you ever heard of the phrase NPOV? Just because you are from India, does not mean that you should try to push your upbringing onto an article that is read by the community. Why don't you go and read the articles in Rediff about the Sino-Indian war. Even Rediff, an Indian newspaper, brings up issues with your POV. As stated above, you cannot decide that it was considered a political failure or even that the "world" turned against China after the war. That is an opinion. NO one knows what the whole world felt at the time and further, I'm sure that China is pretty happy at the political results of the war. kennethtennyson

The issue of POV arises when I univocally state "China failed politically". All I did was to quote the very external article link mentioned in the top along with articles on TIME and NEWSWEEK. You said "NO one knows what the whole world felt at the time". Well, just because YOU don't seem to know what might have been the world opinion does not in any way allow you to delete opinions that sprang at that time and impose your biased view. A third party opinion, especially from a free press is trusted far more than a communist propaganda.
I seldom read Rediff and even if I did I would require some other proof other than partisan sources. Let me ask you one question: Why would an agressor be unprepared while the defending party's military machinery, in this case as you say China be present in full force? I think many such questions were unanswered and these weren't taught by my "upbringing" Politically, it seems evident that India made more mistakes and seemed to be threatening Chinese territory, however military wise the aggressive approach was started by China. China being happy with the results of the war is another thing. I said world opinion. Maybe you need to take things in perspective and know that a military victory sometimes does not always translate to a political victory. The Suez War is a case in point. Idleguy 05:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
China's military was better prepared and equipped. Agression is debatable, since from the Chinese perspective, Nehru also made threatening moves. He ordered Indian patrols into territory north of the MacMahon line, territory both sides agree was Chinese, ordered attacks on Chinese outposts, and he also repeatedly refused to negotiate the matter despite multiple offers made by Zhou Enlai. That these moves didn't translate into military successes is another matter. The Chinese attacks were more successful and coordinated, yes, but they didn't gain any territory from the war. After defeating the Indian army, and capturing all the territory they held claims on, they withdrew back to the same positions they held before the war and offered to negotiate again. I could ask you the same question as well: why would the aggressor defeat an enemy and capture territory only to abandon it and offer to negotiate? Single-mindedly pushing the view that the PRC was the aggressor is not only POV-biased, but people would debate the factual accuracy of that claim. Why not leave just the facts and claims made by both sides and let the reader decide? As for the political claims, instead of having an overly vague claims about political success or failure, perhaps we can put in some concrete and specific statements about the exact political gains and losses by both sides as a result of the war? What political losses did China suffer as an effect of the war, and what political gains did India make?--Yuje 05:48, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Have you actually read what you are quoting? First of all, the statement is a biased and opinionated statement as stated above. Secondly, the author that you are quoting at globalsecurity.org is not an authority on the subject and acknowledges bias as he works for the U.S. military and is compiling data for the U.S. military. As such, he is not an unbiased author. Further, as stated above, no one knows what the world thought at the time, half of the world was unfortunately Communist and they were happy at China's victory. That includes the Soviet Union, Cuba, and the Eastern bloc at the time. The report that you are quoting states obviously that Pakistan supported China. Hence, that statement that China lost in world opinion is wrong because half the world supported China. Secondly, the author at globalsecurity doesn't even state what you want to state about the war being a complete political failure. All that he states is that "Maybe" China lost standing politically in the U.S. That's it. "MAYBE!" And only Maybe in the U.S. and possibly Europe. The author acknowledges that China gained allies after the war. I would call that a political victory. Further, the author in the last statement acknowledges that the result of the war suggested that China has never been an expansionistic nation as the U.S. feared. The war resulted in political losses and political gains for both China and India. Finally, how in the world can you state that Rediff is a biased journal for China? It's run by a bunch of Indian people! kennethtennyson


Maybe you have a problem reading the entire article I quoted. It clearly states the statement which I quoted with little changes. The author clearly states the "political" loss. Also i said "partisan" which means it could be biased in one view or the other. I bloody well know its run by Indian people and not chinese, which i exactly why I don't take those seriously. If u read (if only) properly you'll see I just said no partisan perspective. the word partisan means supporting one polical cause or ideology, be it indian or chinese. Rediff is partisan. period. I don't care if they voice Indian opinion.
Like I said people these days care little for communist propaganda and you are saying communist nations of that time were happy with China's victory. Erstwhile communist nations have disappeared and now the people have come out against their communist masters quoting the lies, and the general brainwashing they indulged in. So backing up your claim that there existed little world opinion on the war is turning a nelson's eye on the world affairs. I suggest you read world affairs magazines of the era and they generally concur that China was the aggressor.
The external link simply quotes its own opinion. That is not my opinon. As far as the farsical argument why China withdrew was clearly because they had lost all politcal backing even from USSR and their supply lines were stretched. Moreover any further intrusion would have meant a fullscale war which US was ready to enter. It would have been a similar loss like in the Korean penninsula. I am simply quoting the article referenced, and not pushing a POV. Here in Wikipedia, some editors don't seem to be able understand the fine line between "what was said" and "what is". The line is a statement of what was felt not what is. If the article in no uncertain terms quotes that "China is the aggressor" instead of "world opinion was of the view" then it would be POV.
If you don't have the time to indulge in historical "opinion" and perspective of an incident I suggest you don't dwelve into such issues. Many are too complicated to be discerned in a stiff upper lipped manner.--Idleguy 07:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Look, we are going around in circles. Has it ever occured to you that a biased opinion from another source is still a biased opinion? You are obviously not able to see any POV except your own. During the 1960's, world opinion consisted of two blocs - communist and western states. It continues to this day. I guarantee to you that Chinese citizens to this day and Pakistani citizens along with other citizens in other nations feel that it was a political victory for China. You and people with your views (ie. Pro-Indian) have been trying to turn this article into a political statement. Just to prove me point, I am going to copy and paste the second to last paragraph on the political loss or gain of China. READ IT! NOTICE THE WORD "MAY"! Also notice how this article that you quote actually seems to support the notion that China was not the Aggressor in the issue even though this article in Wikipedia is taking a very neutral view on who was at fault.

"But Peking "may" (notice the word "MAY!"have lost in terms of its international image. Western nations, especially the United States, were already suspicious of Chinese attitudes, motives and actions; after all, People's Republic leader Mao had stated that "The way to world conquest lies through Havana, Accra, and Calcutta."1 These western nations, including a suspicious United States, appeared to minimize, or not fully to understand, the China- India dispute background: that China believed that Aksai Chin had been legally Chinese since 1899 or before, that no official boundary had been agreed upon between the two nations, and that Nehru's "forward policy" had thrusted troops even beyond India's claim line into Tibetan/Chinese territory."

Notice that the above paragraph only talks about Western nations opinions and not the Eastern bloc opinions. Also, notice again the word "MAY!" Oh... Look! here's a statement on Pakistan and how it supported China and even hoped China would support it in the future.

"Seeing that India was militarily weak after the Border War, Pakistan felt that she was in a favorable position to reslove lingering border disputes in Kashmir. China was friendly toward Pakistan, and Pakistani leaders believed that China might support them in a dispute with India."

Well, I guess that seems like support from another country during the 1960's to me. It looks like political victory of some sort for China. kennethtennyson

Looks to me you are still not reading the entire article and only selected jists. here's the exact words from the article "Much of the World viewed China as the aggressor in the China-India border War, making China's military victory a political setback." Now if u haven't been able to spot that in the article it shows u in poor light for i also read the entire article and the sentence u love to quote; the "may..." sentence.
If there is any bias then I'm going to put it as POV since there is conflict of opinion. Atleast I'm using opinon of the world and not communist propaganda like you to back up what I'm saying. Secondly, it is amusing to see that you are saying " It looks like political victory of some sort for China" which is a POV statement itself and you should be talking about NPOV. Just because you represent a pro-chinese view of a war that china won does not in any way give you rights to alter world opinion of that time. communist blocs don't continue to this day, as u wrongly put it, save for a few pockets like N.Korea, Cuba and China. Maybe it's time to reevaluate your knowledge on this subject as it seems outdated by a decade.
You quote the Pak sources, on the military defeat which has not been debated by me, it was the political aspect which you fail to grasp that we are having issues here. Wikipedia is about expressing a third party's opinion too and not just a stoid representation of rhetorical claims as you see it. -Idleguy 09:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Dude, if Pakistan feels that China won politically, then the whole world wasn't against China and it wasn't a political loss. DUH!!!! Wikipedia is not about expressing an opinion, buddy, it's an encyclopedia. If it were about expressing opinions, I would be writing my opinion on every subject matter out there. Further, I'm not exactly a fan of Communist China, but that it is an opinion, not a fact. What part of the article are you stating, by the way? I am copying and pasting the final two paragraphs! the final two paragraphs that summarize the author's "opinion." NOT FACT. HENCE, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are not here to present opinion, but fact. I don't know what encyclopedias you have where you are at, but the ones I read really are dry and based on fact. kennethtennyson

I can only go so much in spoon feeding u and pointing you the exact line. Also I didn't say "Pakistan feels that China won politically..." as you seem to be unable to understand english. I said I didn't debate the military loss which the whole world knew including Pakistan. READ WORDS and ARTICLES before you jump into half baked conclusions. Encyclopedias don't use opinions. The statement was NOT MY OPINON, but one gleaned from a party not involved in the incident in the first place. I have seen such instances even in Wikipedia, where a third party's opinion was quoted. I have merely referenced that. Why are you jumping up if it were not true. Isn't that a suppression of comments.
Also opinons are found in some articles for instance the opinion that so and so author is among the greates is an opinion. encyclopedias don't give opinons but rather point out sources that back such an opinion. I am doing just that. I gave an opinon, a world opinion and backed it by one piece of evidence though others exist. You instead tend to fudge such a thing by quoting irrelevant propaganda. I wonder why you failed to mention that these communist blocs are long dead? and y u r trying to use the same methods of suppressing neutral or third party opinions like a communist yourself?
To quote WIKIPEDIA official policy " assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves" Click here for the page since you obviously want everything spoon fed I'm just asserting the world opinon facts. that everyone including to a degree Soviet Union felt that China was very aggressive in her stance in the war. It matters very little that communist blocs had their own agenda and official lies, which are now irrelevant since those regimes are long gone. Nazi germany had lots of propaganda and just being a colony of ally with them would have meant an opinon of that era. but that opinon is now just history as they are no longer there and everyone realises most if not all was a BIG LIE.
Like I said if you have a problem i'm putting it in POV since there's endless debate on this. Remember it was not an opinion, but merely one of the many facts that stated an opinion.--Idleguy 10:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Do you actually proofread what you write here? "it is not an opinion, but merely one of the facts that state an opinion?" There is no such thing as a fact that states an opinion. If a fact states an opinion it is an opinion. Oh, how about this... "Ronald Reagan was a terrible president." This must be a fact because I took it from a book on the biography of Ronald Reagan and it is a fact that states an opinion. What Wikipedia is talking about is a statement such as this which is a fact ABOUT AN OPINION.... "This book on the biography of Ronald Reagan ASSERTED that Ronald Reagan was a terrible president." I'm not sure if you're being purposefully dense or if you actually are this dense...Kennethtennyson 07:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. siafu 18:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

@Kennethtennyson

I dont know about you but using personal attacks on other members doesnt help to get your point across. While Communist Chinese propaganda states that India was the agressor, I dont believe such was the case. India unlike China didn't go placing plaques on dead enemy soldiers stating that they were "corpses of the Indian invader". As an Indian would put it, "Truth Alone Triumphs" and the Chinese opinion is not a truth. You can understand why im skeptical about trusting Chinese opinion partly because of their mass censorship and propaganda program which still exists today. The Chinese firewall in place today prevents Chinese citizens (legally, it can be done illegally through a proxy server) to access websites which the Chinese communist party does not approve of. This means, that there is NO free press in China and the only allowed news services are those controlled by the government (e.g. Xinhua). China is an authoritarian state which uses force to suppress its own people even when they are fighting for democracy (see Tiananmen square). China is a dictatorship, China cannot be trusted to report on a war that they participated in as their reports undoubtedly contain bias (and also because of the aforementioned reasons).

Coming to the topic of the Rediff view of the "Sino-Indian War", the individual interviewed was Professor Wang Hongwei, a PRC citizen and no doubt, some of his claims are doubted. There is no TANGIBLE proof (WHAT WIKIPEDIA NEEDS) that India went and killed "innocent" Chinese soldiers even as they were surrendering and this is definetly another example of Chinese propaganda. I'm not sure about how "innocent" these soldiers were considering that 10 years ago, they invaded Tibet. In the process, they killed 1.25 million innocent people and forced the Dalai Lama to sign an article stating that Communist Chinese troops were "invited" to "liberate" Tibet.

I would rather trust a democracy where free press is allowed and encouraged rather than an authoritarian state where all the media is controlled by the government. Also, I might add that deleting third party views just because they are not simillar to the Chinese viewpoint goes against the Wikipedia NPOV clause. It also appears simillar to what the Chinese government is doing to their own people.

@@@@

Do you have any proof of 1.25 million Tibetans killed? Just because mainland China does not have a free press does not mean this article (or any other article with China in it) should be subject to biases that are against it. Just because India has a free press does not mean that whatever comes out of it is the god-given truth and that whatever it says must be placed in Wikipedia without question. I would advise that you refrain from bringing up issues like a lack of a free press and unproven facts like 1.25 million Tibetans killed when trying to rant against propaganda and bias. It only shows your own bias.

Open up your mind

Governments on both sides of this war change history to suit their needs. Do you actually believe that the Indian government has been totally open to its citizens? I'm sure the Indian army wasn't so nice to any prisoners that they captured on the Chinese side. If you read some of those other rediff articles, they actually interview quite a few western commentators who support in part the Chinese contention. Regardless, have you actually read what you wrote? You're stating that you don't believe any POV that comes from China. So basically to you, the only POV that is neutral is the Indian POV. That's a bit biased don't you think? Anyways, as far as I can tell, most of the articles written by western authors support the notion that there was a disagreement of borders between both sides (like the wikipedia article states), politicans began rattling sabers, there were troop movements on both sides (like the wikipedia article states) and a war broke out. Although some western authors seem to be of the opinion that India moved its troops a bit farther north than it should have. Kennethtennyson 2 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)

Do you have any proof about Chinese treatment of prisoners of war? If you dont have facts to back it up, dont make a claim.

What in the world are you talking about? We weren't talking about Chinese treatment of POW's. Kennethtennyson 3 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

This article is biased

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I believe this article is biased, in favour of the Indian point of view.

William Bundy, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, has made one of the more perceptive comments on U.S. Vietnam policy. Writing about the "Pentagon Papers" in the French foreign affairs magazine, Preuves, he identifies "a fearful view of China" as the main factor behind themistaken 1964/65 escalation in Vietnam.

And if he had carried his analysis back further, he would almost certainly have identified the Sino-Indian hostilities of 1962 as the major factor behind this mistaken view of China. The border dispute between China and India is surely one of the most important incidents in post-war Asian history, and a study has long been overdue.

Mr. Maxwell's book is the first detailed account of the events surround-ing the dispute. His thesis-that India, and not China, was largely responsible for the deterioration in Sino-Indian border relations after 1959,and that it was directly responsible for the fighting of October, 1962-is not new. As with Vietnam, other sources have long cast doubts on the official orthodoxy about the dispute. What is new is the detail ofMaxwell's research and his use of confidential documents he managedto obtain from Indian sources to substantiate details which others haveonly been able to infer. His account of the day-to-day moves by the Indian military leading up to the futile attack on the Chinese in the Dhola Strip area is a classic in historical suspense.

But even without the Indian documents, the facts essential to an accurate understanding of the dispute, in particular Nehru's order of 12 October to drive the Chinese from the Dhola Strip, have long been available. And as with Vietnam, the real question which needs to be answered is howobvious facts of communist/anti-communist conflicts can be hidden and distorted for so long by the bureaucratic press and academic establishments which postwar Western societies have spawned. Maxwell, who wrote for The Times from New Delhi during the 1962 fighting, was the only correspondent there who refused to accept uncritically the official Indian account of events. This led to his virtual expulsion from the country. My own experience as China desk officer in the Department of External Affairs during 1962 may also be relevant.

At the time it was not difficult to realise that something was very wrong with the Indian statement of their dispute with China. Peking had all but declared openly it would renounce its not inconsiderable claim to the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA), by far the largest and most valuable of the territories in dispute. Its claim to the Aksai Chin region inthe west seemed strong, and it was clearly moving towards an AksaiChin/NEFA exchange as a basis for settling the dispute.

Delhi, however, rejected this highly favourable proposal, and demanded a complete Chinese evacuation of the Aksai Chin. To validate its claim to the area its historians produced an obviously false quotation from a British proposal to China in 1899. During 1962 India began openly to move troops into the disputed territory to force the Chinese from posi-tions they already occupied. Chinese protestations that this would inevit-ably lead to serious clashes were ignored. The Chinese argument that an evacuation of the Aksai Chin should in all fairness be matched by an Indian evacuation of the NEFA was dismissed.

This in itself was remarkable enough, but Nehru then decided to go one step further and drive the Chinese out of territory to which India could not conceivably have any claim. At the western end of theMcMahon Line which separates India and China in the NEFA there is a small wedge of territory known as the Dhola Strip. It was clear from the maps available before the fighting, and from the original of the McMahon Line circulated by the Chinese after the fighting began, that the area lay to the north of the McMahon Line. Even on the basis of co-ordinates given by the Indians the strip lay in Chinese territory.

I should add that this was not simply my own conclusion; it was confirmed (or at least failed to be denied) by the competent authorities in both London and Washington at the time.

Desk officers are responsible for initiating the processes by which information passes up the bureaucracy to the policy makers. Immediately after the Chinese move to repel the advancing Indians from Dhola Strip,however, Canberra came out with its denunciations of "Chinese aggression" and pledges of unconditional support to India. Nevertheless, the evidence of Indian duplicity was so overwhelming that a paper settingout the background to the dispute and recommending conditions onAustralian aid to India was accepted up to a fairly high level in the Department. It was killed at the next rung on the bureaucratic ladder, however, on the grounds that it was "not in the Australian interest to seeany relaxation of tension between China and India". The gentleman responsible for this wisdom was subsequently to oversee the first Australian commitment of troops to Vietnam.

The incident was symptomatic of much that was, and possibly still is,unhealthy in Australia's foreign policy bureaucracy, its realpolitik pretensions in particular. It also provided a classic instance of how hatreds and fears are self-generating in foreign affairs. In effect, once the decision is made that country A is the enemy, information to the contrary is suppressed by the bureaucracy leaving the politicians and the general public free to wallow in the fantasies of their imagination. The belief that China was responsible for the 1962 fighting led inexorably to Australian readiness to intervene in Vietnam to stop "the downward thrust of China".

Even sadder in some respects has been the behaviour of Australia's academic establishment. Despite a professed commitment to Asian studiesand generous government funds for this purpose, no Australian university as far as I am aware has produced any published academic study of the Sino-Indian dispute. In seminars, books, papers and symposiums produced by these universities over the past nine years the assumption that China was responsible for the hostilities is reproduced with a blandness and lack of evidence that would embarrass even a communist historian discussing the causes of the Korean War. Symptomatically, Maxwell's study was financed by British, and not Australian, research funds.

Two small criticisms of Maxwell's book should be made. He seems to ignore the Indian point about differences in the Chinese 1956 and 1959 maps of the claimed Aksai Chin frontier. True, India at the time did not make an issue of this; it was claiming the whole Aksai Chin and,just as China did not make an issue of India's misquotation of the 1899 proposal because it did not want to imply approval of the proposal, Delhi made only brief mention of the map differences. The Chinese denied there were differences. But one of the more rational explanations-in fact the only rational explanation-I have heard from Indian sources for the Indian case in the dispute hinges on the 1956 map: India's move to patrol behind the Chinese 1959 line of control in the Aksai Chin was a reactionto an unjustified change in the 1956 claim line. Of course, if India genuinely believed the Chinese to have cheated it should have taken up the Chinese 1962 offer for negotiations. The adamant Indian refusal of these negotiations undercuts Indian protestations of innocence and injury.

The other point is Maxwell's interpretation of Nehru's motives. He knows the Indian scene better than I do, but there is much evidence that Nehru up till 1959 genuinely favoured Chou En-lai's compromise proposal for an Aksai Chin/NEFA exchange and was trying to prepare Indian public opinion. Why else would he have publicly cast doubt on India's Aksai Chin claim, as he did in the Lok Sabha during 1959? Alter the Tibetan fighting and subsequent border clashes, however, he seems to have lost control of the situation and allowed himself to be swept along by the intense and irrational nationalistic passions generated throughout the country. --82.75.83.159 21:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Agreed. The problem with wikipedia is that it can be edited by anyone. Mano1 22:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[Title]

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WOW! "India is not a militaristic nation by nature as it is a Hindu nation and Hinduism is a religion of peace." LMAO!!! Using Hinduism as an abstract argument to show how India is a peaceful nation and therefore must not have started the war! Hey do you know that Islam also means peace? Because you see, Islam is about the total submission to God. And what happens when one totally submits to God? Peace! And didn't Jesus say that if someone slaps you on one cheek let him slap the other? HA HA HA! So in this case every Christian and Muslim nation is by nature peaceful! And what about Buddhism? Isn't Buddhism about non-violence as well? And Confucianism, doesn't that teach order, stability, virtue, and benevolence? What about Daoism---it teaches a flow with mother nature. Obviously that implies no war between men. Thus China must be an all-round peaceful country as well. So do you see how ridiculous your claim is? I am not an expert on Sino-Indian War and I doubt you are either. But using Hinduism to prove India's "peaceful" nature is just a new low. And you know what else is low? Claiming the McMahon Line drawn by your former British colonialist/imperialist masters when you yourself just got your independence from them---UTTER HYPOCRISY! IN CONCLUSION: If you want to raise some arguments for neutrality, bring in some scholarly facts rather than an abstract notion of being peaceful coz of your religion. And just so you know, India is 80% Hindu, so it is shameful that you are marginalizing your fellow 20% (200 million) compatriots. Also, I am very impressed about how tolerant and peaceful Hindus were towards the Sikhs.

Even if hundus rioted against sikhs & muslim terrorists, they had it coming to them. You do not anger the majority and get away "As the Sikhs became a distinct religious community, they took up arms against persecution by Hindus and by Muslim rulers of the Mughal Empire."

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Unsigned comment by User:70.177.163.152

Totally agree. Indians are still not waked up even they were, and are used as a chess by Western Countries(USA and British) to play with China. Recently, USA had a plan to help India to become a powerful country. What an excuse Indian cannot refuse again! --Lastklim 23:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
wow.. you people below are a bunch of dumbasses. We marginalize our Sikhs... hmm... the last time i looked india was a SECULAR COUNTRY unlike Pakistan. Are you an idiot? WOW? I dont know where you are from but if you want to make claims based on no evidence whatsoever, wikipedia isnt the place to do it.
FACT: India has a Sikh Prime Minister, a Christian Head of Government, and a Muslim President to lead the nation that is 82% Hindu
TELL ME WHERE THIS IS DONE ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD. Before you start telling India about tolerance, I dont see how imprisoning every suspected muslim in guantanamo bay or invading countries for oil is very tolerant or civilized. do some research before talking. Unsigned comment by User:65.49.223.229

Another point : There are not 200 million Sikhs in India... You are not even qualified to talk about the subject because of your factually incorrect opinions. India is Hindu 80.5%, Muslim 13.4%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.1% (2001 census). Idiots...

Indian POW Treatment

If you look at the history of all of India's wars w/Pakistan ,India has always cared for the Pakistani POW's. I doubt it was any different in the Sino-Indian War. We do not kill captured opposition.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sino-Indian_War/Archive_1&oldid=864469002"