Talk:Depsang Plains

Problems

• Loads of WP:RECENTISM.
• Too much reliance on WP:NEWSORG, which is only reliable for "news", i.e., current happenings.
• Mind you that none of these reporters has actually been to Depsang Plains, they are just reporting hearsay.
• The Army throws up loads of red herrings, clobbered information, etc. etc.
• Some drastic surgery will be needed.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Nothing happened in 2014 as far as I know. The PTI report from livemint doesn't have the original date.
• After the departure of Sushant Singh, the Indian Express is totally confused. I don't regard it as a reliable source at this time.
• Snehesh Philip of ThePrint is even more confused.
• NDTV and The Hindu are the only reliable sources among the newspapers at this time. The Wire is always a reliable source.
• -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is an example from Snehesh Philip:

The Lingzi Thang mountain range divides the Depsang Plains from Aksai Chin.

First, Lingi Thang is a plain, not a mountain range. He probably means Lak Tsung range. But even then, it is misleading to say it "divides Depsang from Aksai Chin" (which is clouding the fact that Depsang itself is part of Aksai Chin.)

Another interesting statement:

The Chinese built a 20-km motorable road along Jiwan Nala in 2010 and 15-km motorable road along Raki Nala from JAK II to GR 626516 in 2011, “both on the Indian side in the Depsang Plain without a scintilla of resistance”, Ravi said.

This is not at all true. The Jiwan Nala road is entirely on the Chinese side of the LAC [1]. The Raki Nala "road" is nothing more than a track in the river bed. Moreover, it doesn't have access from outside. They probably air-drop vehicles there when they need them. There is however a road on a feeder stream, which stops just before entering Raki Nala, blocked by boulders.Wikiloc map This is also on the Chinese side of the LAC and is probably used for supplying troops when they come for standoffs. Even otherwise, the Chinese troops patrol there and they probably use vehicles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

With regard to your point that none of the reporters having visited the area >>> many authors of respected books haven't visited the areas they write about. DTM (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Being SECONDARY sources, they don't have to visit. But the newsreporters are trying to describe the ground situation without having seen it. What they are told by various sources, they understand only imperfectly. If the sources contradict each other, they really don't know how to square things. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Depsang bulge

I have no idea what this term means. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems that all the action that happened during the 2013 standoff, happened at the Bulge. (>>> Battle of the Bulge). The 2013 Depsang standoff says set up a camp in Raki Nula, 30 km south of Daulat Beg Oldi. So by this logic we are in the Raki nala area.

The Hindu writes: Reports of a heavy Chinese presence at Depsang, an area at a crucial dip (called the Bulge) on the Line of Actual Control (LAC); so we just have to look for a "crucial" bulge on the "LAC" near Depsang, or is it saying Depsang IS the bulge?

From diagrams in news articles, it is unclear what the exact location is other than somewhere near DBO and Raki Nala and Shyok and Chip Chap DTM (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, The Hindu article says it is called "bulge" and says nothing more. So they are implying that they can't figure it out. Other newspapers pretend to figure it out but actually don't.

Taylor's Fravel's map p.179 does have a little bulge at the Raki Nala. It was apparently defended by some 7 Indian posts, and one post in the rear at Burtsa itself. But that bulge is a bit deceptive because his line ran along the Depsang Nala itself. Nevertheless, it is clear that the claim line did not run at Burtsa. However, the so-called "LAC of Nov 1959", which is documented in the Colombo map, does run at Burtsa.

So this again goes back to what Yun Sun saying. Which line is the real line? We will never know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

China's claim lines, CIA map

In the CIA map on the right, there is indeed a bulge at Raki Nala in what is being called the 1960 claim line. In fact, it includes the entire Raki Nala in Indian territory. (I will call this the "large bulge")

I verified that the lengh of Raki Nala is 19 km. So that is the figure that is being bandied about.

The distance to the LAC marked on Google Maps is under 7 km, a figure mentioned in the latest Indian Express article in a sort of vague way. (This is the "small bulge".)

Where did the "large bulge" come from? The map on our page doesn't show any coordinates declared boundary points between the Chip Chap River and Kataklik Kangri, as per the quotation from the Officials' Report. It is possible however to interpret this paragraph:

Except for the sources of certain tributaries of the Shyok river, it broadly-not strictly-followed the watershed between the two big river systems. The line turned south-eastward along the high ridge of the Karakoram mountains on the east bank of the Shyok river and the northern bank of the Khugrang Tsangpo river. The entire portion of this line lay along the high ridge. This was a watershed.

to mean that, if the coordinates boundary points weren't specified, then it should be the watershed.

The answer to Q.2 said that the line crossed "3 small rivers called western gulleys". I am pretty sure that the Raki Nala is one of these "gulleys". (The other two would be the tributary of Chip Chap inside the Depsang Plains, and the Jeong Nala to the south.) So I read that it crossed the Raki Nala, but the Chinese didn't bother to specify where it crossed.

I see both the governments paying cat and mouse. They really need to talk and sort it out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

19 KM: Is this the 19km that you are talking about, pg357 this coincides with what you wrote above,

In April 2013, Chinese troops intruded into Depsang Bulge in East Ladakh, approximately 19 km inside of the Indian side of the LAC before being pushed back. China claims this region to be a part of its Xinjiang province.

You have been talking about Raki Nala for a long time. I think I am finally getting to a point where I know what you are talking about. And not cat and mouse. Like the German envoy said, Dragon and Elephant. DTM (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the Indian logic is clearly what I have described above. If the boundary points weren't specified then it should be the watershed. So, in the map above, the line takes a giant arc between the two specified boundary points (the crossing of the Chip Chap River and the Kataklik Kangri I peak) to go and meet the source of Raki Nala in between! Of course, the Indians don't seriously believe that the Chinese will allow that. But they are certainly probing till the 7 km line, which is where the 1962 shooting matches occurred. In response, the Chinese are saying they want the "Nov 1959 LAC", i.e., the yellow line marked on the Colombo map.

While we are dealing with animals, we should keep in mind the horse. You let you horse loose, and as far as it can go without getting obstructed becomes your territory. If somebody obstructs it or captures it, you have a right to wage war. That is how the boundaries were made in ancient times. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Sita Ram Johri gives the location of the Chinese posts in 1962 to be 35°09'45" N, 78°10'30" E (35.1625°N 78.175°E / 35.1625; 78.175). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The 1962 map was published by my favourite Chinese blogger. It is the 9th image in Section 2. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Salami slicing

LSIB vs Chinese claims

To the best of my knowledge, China has not yet done any salami slicing in Depsang Plains. But it has declared its intent by modifying maps. The two areas that show up in this map are the Raki Nala and Jeong Nala ("Jiwan Nala" for the Indian Army). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I seem to have mixed up salami slicing and cartographic assertiveness. The latter makes more sense in the plains area. Though I am not too sure when Post 5390 and the Chinese buildings to the left (near DBO) (as see on OSM) were constructed.

In so many news articles, such as this one by Shushant Singh from The Wire, Jiwan Nala is represented as close to PP13 and far from PP12c, when actually it is at least 5 km away as the bird flies, while pp13 is around 6km from pp 12 claim. DTM (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a new article from the Indian Express with a map of the patrolling points in Depsang, that says that China has been blocking Indian patrols in Depsang plains since around April this year. The Discoverer (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The Discoverer, Kautilya3, the authors have done a relatively good job with this article. This line caught my attention

In Depsang too, a former official said, the PPs have been revised several times since the 1970s, each time moving forward towards the LAC.

So according to this, we have been salami slicing too... in our own territory? This is the first time I am registering that India also pushes PPs forward. That too an Indian source admitting it. I thought PPs were some of the most fixed points and hence good references. Are there any other sources which you have come across which say that India has been shifting points around? DTM (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good article. We need to take more from it. As for "salami slicing our own territory", India didn't have any other option because the Chinese have never declared their lines and exchanged maps. So the only way to determine the line is by probing. They have some points marked by the 1960 boundary talks, whose location on the ground is not entirely certain, and at other places it is guess work. So, the line is being determined slowly through mutual contestation. But what I can't understand is why the Chinese feel entitled to go beyond their 1960 claim line. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I think humankind at large can't stop themselves from crossing lines; sometimes it pays off, sometimes others have to pay a heavy price. I was thinking of creating an article on PPs for a long time, and as you wrote We need to take more from it.... have a look at Talk:Patrol Point and the question of merging the article on PPs into LAC. DTM (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, in other words, the no man's land has decreased to a point of disappearing. DTM (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, It had disappeared well before 1962. In fact it had become a "two man's land".

But more seriously, I think the issue is that of differences between the 1960 claim line and the 1962 ceasefire line (which the Chinese call "1959 LAC"). We know the boundary points specified in 1960. But in addition the Chinese also gave a marked map: e.g., "The map given by the Chinese side showed this alignment very clearly." in answer to Q.5 in the Indian Report, part 1. So, there are right now two lines marked by the Chinese themselves and that is enough to give rise to contestations!

At Raki Nala, the Indian depiction of the 1960 claim line shows a 19 km bulge. By the time of the war, their maps had reduced it to a 7 km bulge. By the end of the war, the bulge had disappeared. So, here we have three lines!

So, plenty of opportunities for salami-slicing by both sides. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Patrolling blocked for many years

I have removed this sentence from the lead:

For many years, Indian troops have not been able to patrol to the Limits of Patrol (LOP).

References

This is not verified by the source.

There is a similar claim in the body sourced to the Indian Express (without Sushant Singh), which says:

a top security officer has told The Indian Express that ... Indian troops have not had access to a large chunk of territory on their side of the Line of Actual Control for “more than 10 to 15 years” now.... The area that India has not accessed in years is around 972 sq km.

Is this for real? India hasn't had access to close 1000 sq km for 15 years, and we are hearing about it for the first time after 15 years? Then what was the 2013 Depsang standoff about? Was it resolved or not? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Source for annotated image & year?

@Kautilya3: The annotated map File:Raki-Nala-LSIB-vs-Chinese-claims.jpg doesn’t mention a source for the two marked locations ("Patrol base" and "Approx. standoff location") which are not in the original Stanford-hosted source, nor does it mention which standoff the latter marker is for (I presume it's the 2020 standoff?). Could you provide the source for the two marked locations and add the year for the latter marker? — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the added ref. To clarify, is the "Approx. standoff location" based on the map captioned "The DSDBO road to Sub-Sector North" in the ref that was just added (The Wire)? What is the "Patrol base" marker based on? Is it the "Burtse OP" in the map captioned "The PLA has denied the Indian Army’s patrols access..."? — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It is the "Burtse OP". I think "OP" stood for Observation Post or something. It has been upgraded to something like a "patrol base" after the 2013 standoff. But the maps still mark it as "OP". It is on a little hillock at the junction point and there are buildings on it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your other question, the marked location is what is being referred to as "bottleneck". Perhaps that is how I should have marked it. The 2013 standoff probably happened at "Burtse OP" itself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Map for this article

This is a low resolution version of a proposed map for this article. As mentioned in the media detailing, labels have been added only to highlight pre-existing information on the map. The map shows Depsang plains relative to locations such as Karakoram Pass and Siachen Galcier. Is this alright for the geography section of the article? DTM (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Depsang Plains (mid left) relative to Siachen Glacier, Karakoram Pass and Saltoro Range. DBO Airstrip and Qizil Langar are visible.

MarkH21 Kautilya3 I can't seem to find a usable static base map of this region. Aim is to show Depsang Plains, Siachen Glacier, Bursta (with bottleneck and pp10 claim to pp13), DBO airstip, Qizil langar, Karakoram pass and Post 5390, Tianwendian and Saser ridge, Chip Chap, Shyok, Gapshan in one map. DTM (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, I will make one using OSM Location map. But for the general overview, I am planning to use the Survey of India map, from which I already prepared a cut-out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Dreadful in every way

Interesting that this description of "dreadful in every way" is not present in Younghusband's The Heart of a Continent published in 1904. It says merely, "beyond the Saser Pass we entered the most utterly desolate country that exists on the face of the globe." And this includes presumably, Murgo ("the gateway to hell"), Burtsa, Depsang, Karakoram Pass and beyond. In his 1924 book, he inserted the "dreadful" line.

Younghusband wasn't exploring, he was on a military mission. His objectives were (1) to determine if the Russians could attack India through the Karakoram Pass (and other passes in Karakoram), and (2) to induce the Chinese to occupy the region between Kuenlun and Karakoram ranges. So, obviously, he was making it look as dreadful as possible so that any vestige of interest the (British) Government of India could have in keeping this region would vanish and the Maharaja of Kashmir would be told off for insisting on it.

Filippo de Filippi, who camped in Depsang for a month to do exploration tells us stuff like this:

But on the other hand the caravans come and go incessantly, in the summer, in astonishing numbers. The first one of the season passed on June 28th, coming from Sanju on the Yarkand road; then more and larger ones came; in July there were four in one day, almost all travelling from Central Asia toward Leh—the Ladakhis usually do their trading at home. The caravans were of all sizes, from small groups of 3 or 4 men with 5 or 6 animals to large parties with 40 or more pack-animals; the men on foot or riding asses, the better-to-do merchants on caparisoned horses with the uncomfortable Turki saddles, the stirrups attached to straps of stuff which are one mass of knots, and short reins that come together in a rope's end. Sometimes there was a camel caravan; but the animals were probably exchanged for Nubra horses at the foot of the Sassir col, before crossing the glaciers.

Filippi also tells us that the experienced caravaners did not stop anywhere on Depsang. They made it from DBO to Murgo in one day, some 31 miles. Many pack animals obviously couldn't take the strain and died. Their bones were aparently used to line the route through the Depsang Plains (where there are no landmarks). In modern days, jerry cans are being used for the same purpose. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

For a month! In the early 1900s! Just the book that this article was looking for! Though Filippo calls the Depsang Plains the Depsang Plateau... a name change in order for the article? DTM (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Additional geography and locations

Here are some names that could be considered for inclusion into the article:

1. The Depsang is correlated with the adjoining plains of Lingzi-Thang and Sumtsi-Ling (pp103, source)
2. K2 is visible from Depsang plains (pp 193, source)
3. Sub sector north was re designated as Partappur Sector in November 1962 (pp90, source)

DTM (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The second one, Pamirs by Earl of Dunmore is available on archive.org.

Some Interesting details: The Burtsa Nala was difficult to traverse as many people say, and eventually they got to walk through the dry bed of the nala. The sun was blazing through the narrrow opening at the top of the gorge and it was "unbearable". Presumably by evening, water started gushing down the nala from the melting snows. (I bet it was Raki Nala that was responsible. Its source is very snow-clad.) In the night, all the water froze!

And they found a musk-deer in the Depsang Nala and a butter fly on top of Depsang La! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-geographic details in long Geography section

@DiplomatTesterMan: Just saw the latest edit and I wondered, should the account of local wildlife be a separate "Flora and fauna" section, since it's not strictly geography and the "Geography" section is getting quite long? Also the caravan route itself is geography, but shouldn't the 1913–1914 description of the caravans themselves (frequency, size, etc) and their 1940s-1950s decline be something that belongs to the "History" section? — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21; I saw this comment after I shifted the content in question to the history section. Yes some of the content needs shifting around. I think that is but natural during the initial stages of an article. Please go ahead with flora and fauna. There will of course be an overlap with history and geography. Currently the content hasn't been worked on enough for the sections to formalise themselves. Sections will come and go; and light heartedly, this is survival of the fittest section. DTM (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and shifted around the sections. Created a blank for Flora and fauna. DTM (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

That section is now completely WP:UNDUE and misleading. Rather than being the "valley of death" and "gateway of hell", it is now looking like a big wildlife sanctuary! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

A geographic feature that is inhospitable to humans can still have wildlife. The Himalayas in general have an abundance of notable flora and fauna despite many areas being inhospitable to people.

A quick search also shows that there are several research papers that talk specifically about the Tibetan antelope in Depsang Plains, for instance:

• Ahmad, Khursheed; Bhat, Aijaz Ahmad; Ahmad, Riyaz; Suhail, Intesar (2020). "Wild Mammalian Diversity in Jammu and Kashmir State". Biodiversity of the Himalaya: Jammu and Kashmir State. p. 945. doi:10.1007/978-981-32-9174-4_36.
• Ahmad, Khursheed; Ahmad, Riyaz; Nigam, Parag; Takpa, Jigmet (2017). "Analysis of temporal population trend and conservation of Tibetan Antelope in Chang Chenmo Valley and Daulat beg Oldi, Changthang, Ladakh, India". GNUSLETTER. 34 (2): 16–20.
• Ahmad, Khursheed; Kumar,, Ved P.; Joshi, Bheem Dutt; Raza, Mohamed; Nigam, Parag; Khan, Anzara Anjum; Goyal, Surendra P. (2016). "Genetic diversity of the Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii) population of Ladakh, India, its relationship with other populations and conservation implications". BMC Research Notes. 9 (477). doi:10.1186/s13104-016-2271-4.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Sarkar, Prabal; Takpa, Jigmet; Ahmad, Riyaz; Tiwari, Sandeep Kumar; Pendharkar, Anand; Saleem-ul-Haq; Miandad, Javaid; Upadhyay, Ashwini; Kaul, Rahul (2008). Mountain Migrants: Survey of Tibetan Antelope (Pantholops Hodgsonii) and Wild Yak (Bos Grunniens) in Ladakh, Jammu & Kashmir, India. Conservation action series. Wildlife Trust of India.

The section could be expanded from these and others on more than just the Tibetan antelope. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

K3's latter comment made me laugh. And yes, I also came across quite a bit on the chiru, which can be integrated. DTM (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Usage of bold in the Locations section

Is the usage of bold (MOS:BOLD) in the locations section alright? DTM (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: Bolding redirect targets is usually fine, but it might be a bit gratuitous in this case. Having 13 bolded redirect targets in one section probably falls under It will not be helpful in a case where a large number of terms redirect to a single article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I will take care of it. Some of these terms will eventually have their own articles, I hope. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Depsang or Depsang plains?

Since this article contains locations other than the immediate "plains", why not move this article to Depsang? And "Depsang plains" can be one part of the larger "Depsang" area? DTM (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I think that might be pushing OR too much. DTM (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Unbalanced template

Unbalanced towards which viewpoints? Weightage of flora and fauna content? Or lack of content saying it is a "valley of death" and "gateway of hell"; a cold hi-altitude desert? DTM (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the paucity of flora and fauna should be first covered before launching into the rare animals that do survive there. Also, for those that survive, an explanation of how they manage to survive, where they find water and nourishment would be useful. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Finally, this particular section is taking shape in my view. While the unbalanced template can be removed, the section still needs some more work. DTM (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It is fine now I think. Thanks for your work! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)