Border face-off: China and India each deploy 3,000 troops

[Officer of Engineers]

I don't believe an independent Tibet will be like revolutionary Iran. How far back in time do we have to go when the Tibetans were able to defend themselves.

1904-1951. They fought off Chinese warlords and in fact took territories until the PLA attacked in 1951.

Five centuries or ten. At some point they decided they would rather hang out in monasteries and created a priestly order that elevated the monks to the top of their society and everybody else was serfs. I suppose in some ways this is revolutionary Iran with clerics at the top, corrupt as they come calling the shots but there was never any will to export their beliefs or dominate the region not in a very long time anyway.

The current DL and his court would suggest otherwise. First, they demand territories currently not under the Tibettan AR and 2nd, they want to deny the Han and the Hui any say in Tibettan affairs, even those who had lived in Tibet for centuries. As I stated, the DL's court peaceful picture is an illusion. People have been known to disappear and while the DL can provide plausible deniability, there is no denying that his Inner Court has silenced a lot of opposition.

[Oracle]

But Colonel, the Dalai Lama did say that he doesn't call for freedom of Tibet, but autonomy.

[Double Edge]

1904-1951. They fought off Chinese warlords and in fact took territories until the PLA attacked in 1951.

Good, then the Tibetans did have agency at the time they ceded Arunachal

The current DL and his court would suggest otherwise. First, they demand territories currently not under the Tibettan AR and 2nd, they want to deny the Han and the Hui any say in Tibettan affairs, even those who had lived in Tibet for centuries. As I stated, the DL's court peaceful picture is an illusion. People have been known to disappear and while the DL can provide plausible deniability, there is no denying that his Inner Court has silenced a lot of opposition.

All in the past. Tibet has been forcibly integrated into China. Not only do the Han have a say they are in complete control. It's an open question whether Tibetans can hold onto their identity let alone win any autonomy. Tibet remained in popular imagination largely due to the charisma of the present DL. Not an easy act to follow. Two generations from now who will be talking about Tibet ? The social engineering started long ago

[Double Edge]

So if the DL's visit to Tawang started this circus was the offer of senior govt officials not to attend Tibet related activities the carrot that ended the crisis ? speculation by me

Altering interactions w/ Dalai Lama was a signal to China - not just that India wanted to engage w/ China & cld be conscious of its sensitivities, but also that India cld act differently if Ch didn't reciprocate. After CPEC announced, GOI sent 2 ministers to Tibetan events

Is this too cold? Is it using the Tibetans? If you think the Dalai Lama & Tibetan leadership doesn't know what's going on, you forget that GOI, Tibetans hv been doing this for decades. Each know what the other is doing, each has to play its cards carefully

Indian govts. since Nehru have had to grapple w/ how to handle the Tibetan issue. It's easy to criticize him (& some of that criticism is deserved) but, in office, every govt confronts the reality that Tibetan political interests & Indian interests aren't one & the same

Indian govts have had to find the right balance. To put it bluntly, they hv had to figure out how to control/use the Tibetan issue w/o getting controlled/used by it. Make no mistake, the Tibetan leadership is aware of this & also playing this game (for want of a better term).

These realities get lost when foreign policy is politicized & Tibet is used as a club w/ which to beat up on other parties. Also, keep in mind that govts since Mrs. G's in the late 1960s hv sought to get China-India rels on an even keel while preparing for a turn for the worse

Why have all these govts (incl Morarji Desai's in the 70s, Vajpayee's in the early 2000s, Modi in 2014) sought to engage w/ China? A no. of reasons, incl it being a neighbor, possibility of benefiting economically, Doklam-level of tensions being unsustainable.

The big mystery (ok, maybe not mystery) is not why Delhi seeks to engage Beijing, but why China hasn't reciprocated to try & prevent India bandwagoning w/ US, Japan

Politicization in/of Indian fo po might make u think otherwise but engagement doesn't mean (or hv to mean) kow-towing. It doesnt/shldnt come from a place of weakness. And it doesn't mean GOI doesn't/shldn't continue to take actions such as bldg capabilities & partnerships

Will this attempt at getting China-India rels back on track work? We shall see.
Is it worth trying? Yes, as long as
- it's not 1-sided
- GOI is going into this w/ eyes open
- GOI continues to build capabilities & partnerships, & not give Beijing a veto on either

Tanvi

[Double Edge]

Activity

“must heighten the frequency and level of meetings, and we hope to see many more engagements in 2018 than before,”

the two sides are also setting the stage for more harmonious dealings ahead

It appears India doesn’t want hard opinions on China aired from the government’s most prominent defence think-tank

Eh!? O-O

will have highly important dialogue where the nuts and bolts of specific projects in five different areas will be discussed threadbare

India, China step up engagement | Hindu | Mar 06 2018

[Double Edge]

Speculation on what the PLA could do this year

[Double Edge]

An older article but no less relevant by George Friedman (Stratfor)

China and India Guard Against the Preposterous | GPF | Aug 17 2017

China and India are next to each other, but in a certain sense they don’t really share a border. The Himalayas separate them almost as much as an ocean would. Getting over the mountains is difficult; roads are sparse and generally in poor condition. It is easier to trade with each other by sea than land. Sending and supplying major military forces into and across the Himalayas is almost impossible. The roads and passes won’t permit the passage of enough supplies to sustain large numbers of troops in intense combat. In that sense, China and India are secure from each other.

Conflict by Other Means

Their militaries may not be able to easily cross the Himalayas, but it takes little effort for them to attack each other politically. On the north side of the Himalayas lies Tibet. It is a plateau, consisting of a non-Chinese population, that was temporarily independent until it was reoccupied by China in the 1950s. In the chaos that followed the Chinese invasion, Tibet’s leader, the Dalai Lama, fled to India, where he was welcomed. The Dalai Lama continues to symbolize Tibetan independence, and Tibet continues to be restive under Chinese rule.

What is most important about Tibet is that it lies on the other side of the Himalayas from India. If Tibet became independent by some means and allied with India, then theoretically an Indian force could be based there and, in time, could build up a logistical system that could support an attack into China itself. This is all far-fetched, but given history, a prudent state must take the preposterous into account. History is filled with examples of the inconceivable becoming reality.

This, then, explains China’s obsession with Tibet and its anger at India’s support for the Dalai Lama. The Chinese core, Han China, is protected by buffers: Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria. The last two are not a problem. Xinjiang has a significant Islamist movement. But Tibet is hostile and has a foreign patron. Beijing is therefore, if not obsessed, extremely concerned about Tibet and India.



That is the Chinese issue. India’s concern is the same in reverse. There are two other states on the southern side of the Himalayas: Bhutan and Nepal. Both are on plateaus. If China gained control of or a presence in either, it could also mass forces and logistical supplies and potentially threaten India with military force.

Nepal in particular concerns India, because it has been politically unstable and has a Maoist movement. Nepal also values its independence and resents India’s intrusions in its affairs. The Chinese have been solicitous of the independence of both countries, and just this week, China’s vice premier visited Nepal for four days. Before that visit, India’s foreign minister was in Nepal, and Nepal’s prime minister will visit India on Aug. 25. Suspicion abounds. The Indians are as suspicious of China’s intentions south of the Himalayas as China is of India’s north of them.

A Political ‘Solution’

A large-scale invasion would be a logistical nightmare for either country to orchestrate, but technically not impossible. The two did conduct a war in Tibet in 1962 for about a month. Yet the brevity of the war speaks to the high cost and complexity of waging battle at 14,000 feet, so much so that it strongly discourages war. But a political evolution in Tibet or Nepal could change the balance. If Tibet threw out the Chinese and invited the Indians in, China would actually be in danger. If Nepal created a pro-Chinese government and invited in the Chinese while the Indians weren’t looking, the same could happen in reverse. And India is poking at Tibet and China at Nepal, the latter with some possibility of success.

The likelihood of either Tibet or Nepal moving out of China’s or India’s sphere of influence is doubtful. It’s hard to imagine that either could foment a sustainable uprising. If it were to happen, though, it could only be taken advantage of by one or the other having secured a road through the Himalayas that could support the movement of troops and supplies.

It is the Chinese now who are trying half-heartedly to build such a road into Bhutan. But there is a long way to go, and India will resist all the way. If the road even made it through, it would be met with a blocking force. Of course, a pro-Chinese government installed in Nepal or Bhutan would complicate the matter. If the Chinese could rapidly insert some troops, causing the Indians to have to initiate combat against Chinese forces, there is an outside chance that it could work, just as under even more trying circumstances it might work for India in Tibet.

India and China are separated by terrain. There is no military solution to that, but in this case, there might be a political solution. If that were to happen, then we could speak of a China-India rivalry in real terms, rather than in the vague, notional ways we speak now. And both sides are prepared to devote minor military force and major political power to prevent it from happening.

It is unlikely in the extreme that any of this will come to bear. But in a world where the impossible is not an absolute, neither country is prepared to gamble. And so they skirmish in altitudes at the limits of human endurance for a far-fetched possibility. Nations do not take their national security lightly merely because the threat is preposterous.

The rivalry between the two is still vague and notional. It threatens to become better defined.

[Oracle]

/\/\/\ Explains China's nervousness. But, everybody remembers 1962, nobody remembers 1967. I hope there is a political solution to part of land where not even a single blade of grass grows. The Chinese, however, are welcome to try otherwise.

[Oracle]

India and China must be frank with each other to prevent another Doklam, ambassador warns

New Delhi’s envoy to Beijing blames China for last summer’s military stand-off, saying it ‘changed the status quo in the region’

[Double Edge]

/\/\/\ Explains China's nervousness. But, everybody remembers 1962, nobody remembers 1967. I hope there is a political solution to part of land where not even a single blade of grass grows. The Chinese, however, are welcome to try otherwise.

You misunderstand the political means here (i think). China is making inroads in Nepal. What if they allowed a Chinese base to set up there ? the logistics won't be easy which
might make this a remote possibility.

I've been having this to and fro with Nepalis and trolls pretending to be Nepalis that if Nepal wasn't careful they could find Indians and Chinese fighting in their land. We won't allow our interests to be compromised under any circumstances.

Nepal for all intents and purposes has to trade with India, there isn't much demand in China for Nepali products. If there are any natural disasters, India will be first on the scene way before China.

Bhutan for now is out of Chinese reach. They don't even have diplomatic relations. Could change with the next elections there. Still, the Bhutanese king has a good rapport with GOI. Always did. Not so with Nepal which quite frankly is a PITA

[Oracle]

You misunderstand the political means here (i think). China is making inroads in Nepal. What if they allowed a Chinese base to set up there ? the logistics won't be easy which
might make this a remote possibility.

I've been having this to and fro with Nepalis and trolls pretending to be Nepalis that if Nepal wasn't careful they could find Indians and Chinese fighting in their land. We won't allow our interests to be compromised under any circumstances.

Nepal for all intents and purposes has to trade with India, there isn't much demand in China for Nepali products. If there are any natural disasters, India will be first on the scene way before China.

Bhutan for now is out of Chinese reach. They don't even have diplomatic relations. Could change with the next elections there. Still, the Bhutanese king has a good rapport with GOI. Always did. Not so with Nepal which quite frankly is a PITA

As per the article "a political situation in Tibet and Nepal...... ". Tibetans cannot throw the Chinese out from Tibet unless helped by India, that is something that has probably been taken into account by military planners I believe, which is to be if a crisis stares us in the face. Agree with you on Nepal though. Nepal has, for too long been an itch. Narcotics, counterfeit currency, terrorism are routed through that country to India. Lacs of Nepalis living and working in India, from Delhi to Bangalore. If diplomacy doesn't work, then GoI should expel those Nepalis. Let the Nepalis feel the heat of their communist China leaning government. Oh, China can take some of them, share India's load of giving them employment.

If things change in Bhutan, then we need to shutdown IB & R&AW. What the F are they doing with my income-tax?

Nepalis and trolls? Dude, how can you miss the communist propaganda machine at work? 50 centers? These idiots are everywhere.

[Oracle]

From China's Ministry of warning - India should have learnt lessons from Doklam: China

[Double Edge]

Let the Nepalis feel the heat of their communist China leaning government. Oh, China can take some of them, share India's load of giving them employment.

From what i've gathered communist is in name only, the election plank was development

If things change in Bhutan, then we need to shutdown IB & R&AW. What the F are they doing with my income-tax?

CIA has had bigger slip ups, they're still around : )

Nepalis and trolls? Dude, how can you miss the communist propaganda machine at work? 50 centers? These idiots are everywhere.

50 centers only work in China not abroad. The ones posting on english youtube channels are based abroad.

From China's Ministry of warning - India should have learnt lessons from Doklam: China

Reacting to India's ambassador to China Gautam Bambawale's remarks that were published on Saturday..

Exactly, figured this was what they were reacting to. Ignore it. For now we have a detente of sorts.

That interview was pretty probing and i felt the ambassador went out of his way to play things down. Over and beyond

[Oracle]

DE, I don't think you understood my point. The 50 centers are everywhere. In US, in UK, perhaps even on Mars, on youtube, FB, perhaps even in Ekta Kapoor's soap operas.

[Double Edge]

DE, I don't think you understood my point. The 50 centers are everywhere. In US, in UK, perhaps even on Mars, on youtube, FB, perhaps even in Ekta Kapoor's soap operas.

Had this argument with some one else already who insisted the 50 centers are a china only op. So not abroad. This study was offered in support

How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, not Engaged Argument (pdf) | Harvard | Apr 9 2017

Which begs the question who are these buggers i encounter in youtube channels. Youtube isn't available in China. So they are overseas sympathisers. MO is the same as the 50 centers. Push the party line. Probably students doing it on their own for patriotic reasons.