lemontree,
how effective SFF would be incase of a longterm war ? i mean since all the tibetans in the SFF rightnow have probably never seen Tibet . they not are "locals" anymore in tibet.
Last edited by hammer; 01 Nov 04, at 07:50.
Links are maintained. They can mingle with the local population and will (may?) get their support. Depends on the situation at that time. But max that they can do is tie up crutial PLA troops in sectors where InA will make a thrust/advance.Originally Posted by hammer
They can only be used for a short while, sustainance will not be much as the PLA will crackdown on them. They can only be used in the manner the 'Mukti Bhani' were used in East Pakistan in 1971.
Cheers!...on the rocks!!
hey i found some informations for this topic.As a chinese,i think this report is objective:
Forty years ago, the Indian nation was convulsed by fear and eventual humiliation as its army was vanquished by the Chinese People's Liberation Army in a bitter and cold battle in the Northeast.
Forty years later, India has repaired its relationship with the Chinese to some extent, but those wounds have not been forgotten.
Excuses have been thrown up for the military debacle. India was ill prepared; it believed in non-violence; it trusted the Chinese and in 'Hindi-Chini bhai bhai'. Fingers have been pointed, most famously at then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, defence minister Krishna Menon, and Lieutenant General B N Kaul, who was in charge of the army on India's eastern frontier.
After the war, India claimed that China was occupying about 33,000 square kilometres of its territory in the Aksai Chin region of Ladakh. China claimed that India was occupying 90,000 square kilometres; Beijing claims the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh as its territory.
Forty years later, few know the real story of what happened, what went wrong. Successive governments have refused to release the Henderson-Brooks report that investigated the lapses of 1962.
Though the two Asian giants have tried to mend their relations over the decades, several issues remain unresolved: the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile in India; China's non-recognition of Sikkim's merger with India; the nuclear tests in 1998 by India; and India's allegation that China is arming Pakistan, including the latter's nuclear programme.
http://us.rediff.com/news/indochin.htm
Last edited by Davis_Chan; 01 Nov 04, at 18:06.
Davis
Yes there is a disagreement on the borders. However, the little that I could research on from the ancient maps of the Chinese/Tibetan emipres, Arunachal was never within the kingdoms of either China but some portions of the Kemang/Towang would have been under the Tibetan rulers at some time. Similarly with Aksai Chin, it is a Platue that was required for a strategic road to link Tibet with Sinkiang, so Mao had got it occupied. If you see the terrain and mounitanous layout of Aksai Chin, it seems unlikely that Titebans ever controlled that region. Even for that matter the Dogra kings of Kashmir would have had very little influence over there due to its remoteness and lack of habitation. It would have been a sort of no mans land during ancient times, only used as transit by traders going/coming from Kashgar.
If the Mchmohan Line was unacceptable to Mao and he needed Aksai Chin for a road, he should have initiated negotiations, instead he action and Nehru's reaction has led to 42 years of suspicion and bad blood that could have been avoided.
Cheers!...on the rocks!!
hey,lemontree.i got your main idea but not clearly in some details.
i am SURE that what our government told us about the war in 1962 are different.What I learned from history in highschool told me the McMahon line which made by an english only recognized by Indian and local Tibet government,The central government of China rejected the McMahon line,including Republic of China(1911-1949) and People's Republic of China.
The trigger of the war in 1962 was India attacked the China-control-region first,then China have to fight back.This war we chinese called "self-defence war towards India",several minutes ago i just surfed some Indian website about this war,i found it's different from chinese
in addtion,i have a question to you. I heard some indian believe Tibet do not belong to China.and India holds it. Is that ture?
Last edited by Davis_Chan; 02 Nov 04, at 09:37.
What our govt. tell the people is far away from the truth.
I don't know where you have read about the Indian views on Tibet. But the present belief is that China owns Tibet, the difference is only on the portions of Aksai Chin and some portions of Arunachal.
When you were taught (in school) that India attacked China, it must have been the 'forward policy' of deploying troops near the border. If there was anything else do let me know, so we can discuss it. The only 'attacking' that Indians had done was in helping (along with CIA) the Tibetan insurgents to carry out attacks on the PLA. Beyond that the Indian army was so neglected by Nehru that it could bearly attempt any operations in mountains without any infrastructure.
Cheers!...on the rocks!!
Davis
Please read an extract of Tibetan history from the lonely planet web site, it has certain portions of history that may have not been included in the current Chinese school text books for obvious reason.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinat...et/history.htm
We are aware that Tibet has been a protectorate of China since approx 300 years.....When he died in 1682, the Tibetan government encountered succession problems: the hastily-enthroned sixth Dalai Lama was noted for his 'unbridled licentiousness'. At the same time, relations with the new Chinese Manchu Qing Dynasty quickly soured and in 1705 Mongol forces descended on Lhasa, capturing the Dalai Lama. The choice of his successor was just as controversial. He was deposed during the invasion of a rival group of Mongols in 1717, who were ousted in turn by the Chinese, who brought the seventh Dalai Lama with them. The Chinese were received as liberators by the Tibetans, and Emperor Kang Xi declared Tibet a protectorate of China - a historical precedent for the Communist takeover nearly 250 years later.
If the Manchus signed the second accord then they would have accepted the Mchmohan Line.The Brits lost official contact with Tibet, but, fearing Russian expansion into Central Asia, decided to nip Russian designs in the bud. A 1903 expedition discovered that the Dalai Lama had fled to Mongolia with a Russian 'adviser'. However, an Anglo-Tibetan convention was signed via negotiations with a lama whom the Dalai Lama had appointed as regent in his absence. The accord implied that Tibet was a sovereign power with the right to make treaties of its own. The Manchus objected and in 1906 the British signed a second accord that recognized China's suzerainty over Tibet.
Cheers!...on the rocks!!
Davis
Lonely plant is an independant source and gives facts as they are. I hope you trust it as an unbiased source.
Cheers!...on the rocks!!
Lemontree,thanks for your informations,i have read it.Basically i agree with what the article said.i aslo check some resourses.the evidence shows that the history between Tibet and China was even longer than you imagined.
There were used to be a closely relationship between Tibet and China since the Li Shi Ming, great king in Tang dynasty China,had his daughter princess Wen Cheng got marriage with the King in Tibet about 640.BC. And in 821.BC China and Tibet signed a documentary to be ally,pledged maintaining the friendship forever.
Mongolia ruled Tibet since 12th and then Ming dynasty inherited the Yuan since 13th who aslo inherited the role to govern Tibet.I think what u mentioned above that Tibet has been a protectorate of China since approx 300 years,is not exactly.
As for the Manchus line,i don't know much about it.But most chinese believe that British government was a trouble maker : Kashmir,Manchus line and even Hongkong today.
Well, most of the bitter conflicts were their 'gift', like the Kashmir porblem, the Israel-Palistine imbroglio. But the border conflict between India and China was the undoing of both the govts at that time. Both nations were new and the leaders (Nehru/Mao) should have addressed this issue. I feel Nehru should have taken the initiative when PLA moved into Tibet.
Cheers!...on the rocks!!
Davis
Some old Indian army pics, these are about 3 yrs after the '62 border war. Below is patrol getting ready to move, near Nathu la (eastern sector). Notice the change in the rifles from .303 to L1A1 SLR.
Last edited by lemontree; 03 Nov 04, at 10:37.
Cheers!...on the rocks!!
Indian gunners struggle with a gun on a mucky and slippery road, in the eastern sector (1962). Its a well known pic here in India.
Cheers!...on the rocks!!
Sino-India War in 1962
It's my pleasure to have conversation with you,you are a rational guy,Lemontree
i believe indian and chinese do not consider each other as a treat.Resently,as i know,China supports India's bid for UNSC.I think it's a good news for both of our country.
Last edited by Davis_Chan; 03 Nov 04, at 16:02.
ARE U KIDDING, THEY WOULDNT DARE TO FIRE BALLISTIC MISSILES! if THEY WOULDE THE U.S. WOULD JUMP IN FASTER THAN U CAN SAY "CAT IN A HAT." I TALK TO INDIAN, RUSSIAN, AND AMERICAN COLONELS. I DONT WANT TO PROVIDE U WITH NAMES, BUT MOST OF THEM SAY INDIA WOULD WIN. INDIAN SOLDIERS ARE WELL TRAINED ON THE TERRIAN, MUCH BETTER THAN THE CHINESE. CHINA MAY HAVE WEAPONS IN A 10:1 RATIO TOWARD INDIA. BUT U HAVE TO REMEMBER ITS THE MOUNTAINS, U CANT JUST FIRE THEM RAPIDLY. THE WHOLE WAR WOULD CONSIST OF FIRE FIGHTS AND SMALL ARITLLERY. TO TELL U THE TRUTH, I DONT REALLY THINK EITHER BORDERLINES ARE EXTREMELY PROTECTED. THEY ARE BOTH SO LARGE, AND TREACHEROUS.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Share this thread with friends: