Talk:Sino-Indian War/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Territorial change

It seems that a number of objections and discussions had been made on entire Talk:Sino-Indian War/Archive 9, that Aksai Chin had been already a part of China years ago. And upon more research I have found out that there Status quo ante bellum is also supported by WP:RS. I have restored it. Capitals00 (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Your claims of references for this are very dubious. Your second source, Okoth's book, on page 98 clearly states that the status quo ante bellum was not reached and that 'China still illegally possessed 14,500 miles of Indian territory in Ladakh...'. Here are some evidences that show that India was active inside Aksai Chin before the war:

• From Chapter 2 of India's China War, which describes the Forward Policy (1959 to 1962): "India refused to open negotiations, and steadily pushed forward, first in the middle and eastern sectors and now in the west."
• From Calvin's account: "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."
• Excerpts from Calvin's timeline:

1961 - Nehru sends troops and border patrols into disputed frontier areas to establish outposts; skirmishes increased in late 1961

July, 1962 - Skirmishes in Aksai Chin

October 20-21, 1962 - Chinese launch simultaneous attacks in Aksai Chin, successful against Galwan Valley and Chip Chap Valley posts

November 18, 1962 - Chinese successful at Chushul; no Indian force remains in Aksai Chin

• Places like Gurung Hill, Sirijap and the Spanggur region where battles were fought during the war are today under Chinese control.

To conclude: From 1959 till the war, Indian posts and patrols were in Aksai Chin. China defeated the Indian troops in Aksai Chin. This tells us that the positions at the beginning of the war (20 October 1962) were different from those at the end of the war (7 November 1959 positions)

The Discoverer (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

They are WP:RS, better than the few sentences that you have provided after misunderstanding them. Having posts or patrolling is not same as the possession of the territory. As for "still illegally possessed 14,500 miles of Indian territory in Ladakh", is what Aksai Chin is, that China has possessed since 1959. "On November 21, 1962, Zho Enlai announced a cease-fire and declared that Chinese tropps would withdraw behind defacto borders that had existed as of November 1959; in other words, China would remain in control of the Aksai Chin, while allowing India to reoccupy the areas to the south of McMahon Line."[1] There were no territorial changes. Capitals00 (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You are just repeating the Chinese claim.. of course China claims to have retreated to pre-war borders. But that is not the fact. The very sentence before the one you have quoted says: "By November 20, China had taken the entire Aksai Chin". The Discoverer (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that, if there were border posts or 'forward posts' of India before the war, which got removed, that counts as a territorial change. Placing posts is obviously a way of marking territory. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Read: "After the war, Indian troops quickly moved back to where they had been deployed earlier. In fact, the war did not change the status quo of the border."[2] "China unilaterally announced a ceasefire and restored to status quo of 1959".[3] There were no posts of India held in Aksai Chin, year(s) before the war. And they didn't had any after the war either, thus no territorial change. Forces do enter in other countries in order to fight, otherwise how there will be any war or military conflict? That is said, and then we have enough reliable sources to support the war ended status quo. Capitals00 (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

As I have pointed out above, it is clear from prominent sources like Maxwell and Calvin that India had forward posts in Aksai Chin that were removed during the war. One can read Okoth's book, which you yourself have cited, and which clearly states that the pre- and post-war positions are different. Or [4], which again clearly lists some of the places that India lost during the war. However, you have cited some sources that claim status quo ante. What is the reason for this contradiction? If you see the paragraphs surrounding both the sentences in your previous reply, it is clear that they are both based on the viewpoint that China had complete control over Aksai Chin before the war. The very next sentence in 'China-India Relations in the Contemporary World: Dynamics of national Identity and Interest' states that the author is assuming Chinese control in Akai Chin before the war. Therefore, if we say 'status quo ante bellum' or 'China conquered territory', that is to state a point of view. Hence, in my opinion, it makes sense to not take sides, and to state the undisputed facts, that 'Indian posts and patrols removed from Aksai Chin, which comes under exclusive Chinese control', and let the reader decide whether it was 'status quo ante' or not.

I am clearing the field from the infobox in the article for now, let's fill it when we have some consensus here. The Discoverer (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Okoth didn't said anything like "pre- and post-war positions are different", it only said that China still kept 14,500 miles of territory which is Aksai Chin, and it mentions status quo. I am not to give any credibility to a news source that you have provided because it is nothing credible as the reliable sources that I have sourced. India had no posting in Aksai Chin before the war or after the war. In fact we even consider the outcome of Kargil War to be no territorial changes, despite it was far more controversial. In better words, no one disputes the territorial changes of Sino-Indian War, except you. Capitals00 (talk) 06:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Above, so many reliable sources including Maxwell and Calvin have been cited that speak of Indian posts in Aksai Chin prior to 1962. There is absolutely no way you can say that India did not have posts in Aksai Chin before the war. My point is that if we say something like 'Status quo ante' or 'China conquered territory', then that becomes a POV statement. If we state the facts that there were Indian posts in Aksai Chin before the war but not after, then we are stating objective facts. The Discoverer (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Where did Calvin said that Aksai Chin came under China as outcome of this war? Like you are claiming. Also you can't override all other reliable sources just because you find yourself capable of misrepresenting one source. If we say "Status quo ante" that would be perfect, since it is backed by enough reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

See what Calvin has to say about what China did after the ceasefire with the areas that it had captured: "India could keep the disputed territory north to the McMahon Line in NEFA, but China would keep the disputed territory in Aksai Chin." So Calvin says that Indian forces were in Aksai Chin before the war and that China kept Aksai Chin. The Discoverer (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00, I am afraid you misunderstand the sources. China withdrew from all occupied regions in the northeast. But they did not withdraw in the northwest. There they advanced to their 1960 claim line. The result in the two regions should be separately mentioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Discoverer: So why you are singling out Aksai Chin as territorial change? Yet you are not pointing out Arunachal Pradesh. I think this is a case of WP:IDHT that you are out to reject the reliable sources just because you believe that you can misrepresent an old vintage primary source like Calvin.

More sources for supporting status quo: [5](Oxford University Press),[6]

@Kautilya3: No I am not. Where did I said that China withdrew from North West? Sources that I quoted or mentioned are not even using "north west" anywhere. My point is that the outcome of the war was "Status quo ante bellum", like reliable sources support. Aksai Chin was already under China since 1959. There is no way we can outnumber the reliable sources by making an unofficial and inaccurate claim. You should better think that there is a reason why these many reliable sources say Status quo ante bellum, they must have went over these claims. We should not be claiming them to be incompetent just because The Discoverer believes something else. Capitals00 (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry. You are still not making any sense. Please read the section on Ceasefire. Look at the Aksai Chin map that shows the positions at various times. Then summarise it in the infobox. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Again we can't take The Discover's opinion over scholarly opinion. The section was written by The Discoverer after successfully misrepresenting the sources and edit warring over them.[7] Look at the version before[8] the edits by The Discoverer. But thank you for pointing it out, I would better restore the earlier stable version of the section. Capitals00 (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Since those sources have been already discussed here and The Discoverer resorted to misrepresenting "calvin's account", I have restored the earlier section. Per WP:BRD, there should be consensus before bringing unilateral controversial edits to this article. While going through the history of the article itself, I am realizing more that The Discoverer has history of deliberately misrepresenting sources concerning this subject. @Zanhe: would agree as well, since Talk:Sino-Indian War/Archive 9#Misuse of sources really tells something. Capitals00 (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00, the reason we are not mentioning Arunachal Pradesh in the territorial changes field is because there were no territorial changes in Arunachal Pradesh. India controlled it before the war, and after the war ended too, India had Arunachal Pradesh. The difference is in the western sector.

Also, please stop from deleting text from articles. Per WP:BRD, it is you who have boldly edited a stable page, you have been reverted, and it has to be discussed here. The Discoverer (talk)

Capitals00, you cannot keep deleting well-sourced text that you do not like from articles like you did here, here and here. The Discoverer (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Same goes for Aksai Chin like every scholar has said, that it was occupied by China in 1950s, and it was not the outcome of the war. WP:BRD means "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle", you made an edit, I reverted it, and now it is being discussed. I have reverted your misrepresentation of sources on Ceasefire which is misleading editors. You never made discussion or gained consensus for adding such controversial and misleading content, if you had any then I won't be reverting. We have already discussed the sources that you have used, and none of them support what you are frequently claiming, and not to forget that you have history of misrepresenting sources on this article as said by others as well. Capitals00 (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, you do not understand the meaning of WP:BRD. WP:BRD clearly states that 'If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle'. In any case, it is clear that you have been unable to prove your point on the talk page, in the face of sources cited by me which unambiguously show that there were Indian posts in Aksai Chin before the war that were and that after the war China has complete control over Aksai Chin. You are resorting to repeatedly deleting well-sourced text that you dislike from articles without taking into account the views of other editors on the talk page. The Discoverer (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Were you taking views of other editors objecting your edits? We have discussed each of these sources, I have found that you used a source[9] for claiming that "area gained by China in Ladakh has been claimed by India", but source said "had", not "has" and that was during 8 September 1962, when the claim had been made. You are treating it as outcome of the war. FYI China had had also established its posts in Arunachal Pradesh months before the war,[10][11] but they were removed after the war. Only because a country establishes posts and then agrees to status quo, it doesn't means that it lost territories. Since you are finding it very hard to understand this war, I can provide you another example, that there were posts of Pakistan in Kargil, during the Kargil war, India took total control of Kargil and still controls it, but the outcome of the war is still no territorial changes. Capitals00 (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Article stated Status quo ante bellum until recently after The Discoverer started to modify it with his WP:OR. It should be re-added back as Status quo ante bellum on infobox with the reliable sources that were removed here. Razer(talk) 18:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no WP:OR. The references cited in the text I removed do not remotely support 'status quo ante bellum', as I have explained here, and moreover, the said text was only added on 6 Sept 2017. The Discoverer (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is becoming a bit too long for no special reason.Mentions Aksai Chin as "already under Chinese control" in 1960. Until 1960, India marked Aksai Chin border as "boundary undefined".[12] There were no official boundaries between both India and China before 1962.[13] Infobox should be simple and clear, not stuffed with WP:SYNTHESIS. Status quo ante bellum is indeed correct. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I must also conclude that I am deeply concerned with incompetence of The Discover. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• I would support adding Status quo ante bellum to the infobox as well, it's what the preponderance of reliable sources say. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 06:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support status quo ante bellum: The sources provided here and further down affirm that China withdrew their forces to the pre-war positions -- "pre-war" is another synonym for "Status quo ante bellum." Here are some reliable sources that have used this term to define that there were no changes in territory:[14][15][16][17][18] These sources don't appear to be the most reliable reliable, but they are not very bad either: [19][20] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking at sources

I think this is clear enough:

On 21 November Beijing announced a unilateral ceasefire to be followed by the withdrawal of Chinese troops to the north of the McMahon Line. But China would retain control up to its 1960 claimline in Ladakh--a situation that persists till today.

Hoffman presents it as an Indian view, but seems to agree with it:

These conditions presented certain problems for India... the Chinese claim line differed greatly from any line held by them on 7 November 1959 and reflected their efforts to estalish claims to Indian territory by force, both before and after their massive attack on Indian outposts and forces on 20 October 1962.

My proposed wording is "Status quo ante bellum in northeast India; China advances to its 1960 claimline in Aksai Chin". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Taylor Fravel is more definitive:

It is difficult to determine with much precision the amount of disputed territory that China has occupied on the battlefield. China occupied several thousand square kilometers of land in the western sector of its dispute with India in the late 1950s. After the war in 1962, China may have gained control over an additional 1,000 square kilometers of territory.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

may have gained,(did or not?) 1,000 square kilometers(never heard anywhere else.. what are the names of regions?) shows that it is more doubtful, not more definitive. He has provided incorrect information about Chinese conflicts with other countries on same para. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

See Galwan River for an example. As for some so-called "incorrect information", you are out of your mind if you think your personal opinion counts here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Not an "additional" territory. In place of resorting to personal attacks you can better investigate these claims China doesn't have any territory that it occupied from Vietnam during 1981, 1984. He also claims China occupied Mischief Reef in 1994, although it was 1995. Proves that he is also incorrect about Chinese conflicts with other countries. We dont use sources that contradict every article. 04:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

References

I agree with your proposal. Another similar option could be "Status quo ante bellum in Arunachal Pradesh; Indian posts and patrols removed from Aksai Chin, which comes under exclusive Chinese control", which practically states the same thing, but is a more direct statement of facts, as a casual reader doesn't know what China's 1960 claimline refers to. The Discoverer (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

1960 claimline in Ladakh doesn't change Status quo ante bellum in Aksai Chin either, also noted by other sources that Aksai Chin was already Chinese region, years before war. Capitals00 (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry. That is not enough. Please state which sources, what they say that support your contention. Note also that I have cited the best American scholar and the best Indian scholar on the subject. Your sources better be extraordinarily good to counter them! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The enough sources I provided for Status quo ante bellum, from Oxford, Routledge, and others cannot be treated as less. We can do only 2 things here. We should be rid of the territorial changes info like we are now, or simply state status quo, like the article always did until The Discoverer's original research. Capitals00 (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00, do you realise that this is clearly WP:IDHT, where you are unwilling to accept a sentence taken straight from Maxwell's book? The Discoverer (talk)

Capitals00, your wish. If you don't present your sources and discuss, either the article will remain protected or you will get blocked, whichever comes first. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have made a response to the proposal on above section after reading this discussion. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Discoverer: After looking further in Hoffman, I find that your revised statement of the status quo is correct. It is impossible know how far the Chinese controlled before the war, but the effect of the war was to remove the Indian posts and force exclusve Chinese control. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

While India had repossessed Karil in Kargil war, must better defined, still the territorial change is still considered "Status quo ante bellum". What about India controlling Arunachal Pradesh after this war? China also has posts in Arunachal Pradesh before war, but they were removed as result of war. You are ignoring it. Indian government sure thought that Aksai Chin should be given to India, but China also thought that Arunachal Pradesh should be given to them. Outcome of war did not change "status quo".

We can do nothing other than stating "Status quo ante bellum". We have consensus for it by 3-2, and others have also agreed that status quo ante bellum is what the article stated until The Discoverer started to grossly disrupt this article. Since you asked for sources, here are some:-

• After the war, Indian troops quickly moved back to where they had been deployed earlier. In fact, the war did not change the status quo of the border. - China-India Relations in the Contemporary World Routledge, 2016.
• One short Sino-Indian war, fought in sparsely populated mountainous regions, was followed by restoration of the status quo ante (1962).Escape from Violence: Conflict and the Refugee Crisis in the Developing World, Oxford University Press.
• "China's unilateral ceasefire and withdrawal back to ex ante line of actual control (LOC) after defeating the Indian Army in the 1962"A Theory of Security Strategy for Our Time: Defensive Realism, Springer, 2010.
• "China unilaterally announced a ceasefire and restored the status quo of 1959."China and the World since 1945: An International History Routledge, 2013.
• "While India's ill-prepared and ill-equipped forces quickly fell in the face of a determined Chinese assault, China declared a unilateral ceasefire and restored the territorial status quo ante."Modi and the World: (Re) Constructing Indian Foreign Policy World Scientific, 2017.

We cannot ignore these reliable and dated sources, that have stated the outcome in clear terms. Capitals00 (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

We cannot ignore these reliable and dated sources. That is a wrong way to phrase it. We are supposed to describe the scholarly consensus, and you determine the consensus by looking at the sources and their authenticity in depth, not by bean-counting. The scholars I am citing are authoritative sources, who have studied the subject in depth and whose books have hundreds of citations and a dozen glowing book reviews. Your sources are nowhere near. The very fact that you don't even bother to cite the names of the authors is telling. When there is disagreement among the RS, you are expected to look in detail about the nature of the sources. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

Let us take your first source for example. It is written by a junior researcher of some kind by name Yang Lu. His book has received no citations and no book reviews. His source for the statement is Garver's book chapter on China's motivations, not the war itself. Not the best possible source. He does not even give a page number. The corresponding statement in Garver's article says: There they unilaterally halted and pulled back northward behind what China said was the line of control prior to the beginning of India's policy of pushing into contested forward areas. The use of "northward" suggests that Garver is talking about the eastern sector, not Aksai Chin. So, perhaps, Yang Lu is also talking about the eastern sector. Or perhaps he is reproducing Chinese POV dressed up to make it look authentic. His sourcing is definitely wrong.

There is Chinese POV on the matter. China declared that it had withdrawn to the 1959 positions. But it didn't. Fravel has said it in black and white. Look also at the maps of Hoffmann on pages 76 and 93, which show the difference between China's 1959 position and the ceasefire line. In fact, these maps are quite close to those created by The Discoverer.

Many sources also seem to be mixing up the eastern sector and the western sector, transposing one result for another. So, please look at the sources closely and bring sources that really know what they are talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk)

Add this too that China declared:

"a unilateral ceasefire and withdrawing to the status quo ante, leaving Arunachal Pradesh in India and Aksai Chin within China."

By Oxford University Press, Jude Woodward, an academic on China. Now since this is another high quality source, I would highlight that the author is talking about both eastern and western sectors. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me highlight: Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yet you quote Taylor Fravel who went to mention incorrect information about Chinese conflicts with other countries as well on same para . The Oxford source seems expert on China and its foreign affairs. As long as this obvious information is concerned, I was adding the prevalence of this particular analysis that really appears to be unanimously accepted by experts. Since you want a more reliable source on this matter, I can give you another. On page 163, defines the outcome as:

"Full-scale armed conflict erupted on 20 October and lasted a for a month ending with India's defeat and China's unilateral withdrawal to its original positions."

In The Sino-Indian War of 1962: New Perspectives, Amit R. Das Gupta, Lorenz M. Lüthi, Taylor & Francis, 2016. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous! You can't claim "unanimously accepted by experts", when I have just given three top scholars in the field who disagree, not to mention the fact that the Indian government itself disagreed and demanded status quo ante. I have already discounted Woodman on the grounds of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and this new source is more of the same. You are wasting my time and beginning to be WP:DISRUPTIVE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Top scholars? Your first quote or source doesn't claim that China gained any region as result of war. "retain control up to its 1960 claimline" is not an expansion. Where did Hoffman described the outcome of the war in terms of border? Take out Farvel, because he is doubtful about his information with "may have". You are not making any case by using them to reject my sources. So what if India had disagreed? Don't present half story, because whole story is: "According to Indian records, China was in illegal possession of 37,500 square km (14,500 square miles) of Indian territory to the northeast of Kashmir. And the Chinese claim that India was occupying 129,000 square km (50,000 square miles)." Still China had to withdraw to territories before war or the origins of war. A book wholly dedicated to the Sino-Indian War, published by high quality publisher passes the policy you linked. I understand that this is becoming too long because of the incompetence of The Discoverer and you are somehow trying to find sense, you can read WP:STICK. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Deleted text

The positions to which the Chinese troops withdrew in the Western sector were different from the pre-war positions. The area gained by China in Ladakh has been claimed by India to be 6,475 square kilometres (2,500 sq mi), and the total area occupied by China has been estimated to be 14,500 square miles (38,000 km²). For this reason, Nehru did not officially accept the ceasefire offer of the positions of 7 November 1959, but stuck to his earlier demand to return to the positions of 8 September 1962.

References

This is with regards to the text deleted without justification by Capitals00. I have broken down the main paragraph in question by sentence and pointed out the relevant portion in the references:

• Statement: "The positions to which the Chinese troops withdrew in the Western sector were different from the pre-war positions."

• Okoth :

"China still illegally possessed about 14,500 square miles in Ladakh including the fruits of their latest aggression in this sector.Though India did not agree to the unilateral terms of the aggressor, it decided not to alter the ceasefire. India again repeated its demand for the restoration of the status quo as on September 8, 1962 as a pre-condition for a mutually-agreed ceasefire. A stalemate ensued as the Chinese rejected the Indian proposal"

• Indian Express:

"They (China) were clearly trying to establish their claim on Indian areas they had occupied only after their aggression on October 20."

• Statement: The area gained by China in Ladakh has been claimed by India to be 6,475 square kilometres (2,500 sq mi)

• Krishna Rao:

"In a statement dated December 19, 1962, India pointed out that between the November 7, 1959 line and the September 8, 1962 line, there was a difference of about 6475 square kilometres of Indian territory which China had occupied."

• Statement: and the total area occupied by China has been estimated to be 14,500 square miles (38,000 km2)

• Okoth:

"China still illegally possessed about 14,500 square miles in Ladakh including the fruits of their latest aggression in this sector."

• Statement: For this reason, Nehru did not officially accept the ceasefire offer of the positions of 7 November 1959, but stuck to his earlier demand to return to the positions of 8 September 1962.

• Indian Express:

"So Nehru decided to say nothing about the Chinese declaration (...) There could be no talks with China, he wrote, until the Chinese went back to their pre-September 8 positions, that is to say, vacated the areas they had occupied by the use of force (...) (Nehru said) negotiations would be possible only "on the basis of undoing the further aggression committed by the government of China on Indian territory since September 8, 1962."."

From the above, it is clear that the sources support the text that was summarily deleted from the article. The Discoverer (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Like it has been told to you enough times already, Okoth says that the war resulted in status quo, and "still illegally possessed 14,500 miles of Indian territory in Ladakh" would mean that China didn't give up its control even after the war. Okoth is surely not misleading enough to mention "Status quo", if he wants to tell that China gained more territories after the war, something he really didn't. While you are making a claim that "Aksai China came under China" as outcome of war, source is opposite to that claim if anything.

Krishna rao says "there was a difference", and this statement dated to 1962, you are misrepresenting it as present situation. Same with the Indianexpress source, and it doesn't mentions Aksai Chin. Capitals00 (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Where does Okoth, as you claim, say that the war resulted in status quo?

As for Krishna Rao, the sentence in question is also properly summarised. Just one sentence earlier, the book states that China was insisting on a ceasefire according to the so-called "November 7, 1959" line, then India pointed out that there was a difference of 6475 sqkms that China had occupied. The Discoverer (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

"was insisting"? But that was 1962. China possessed in the west what it was already possessing years before the war. Capitals00 (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please substantiate your oft-repeated claim that Okoth said that the war resulted in status quo.

And if you still hold any doubts about Krishna Rao, then here is Hoffman saying exactly the same thing:

Furthermore, the Chinese claim line differed greatly from any line held by them on 7 November 1959 and reflected their efforts to establish claims to Indian territory by force, both before and after their massive attack on Indian outposts and forces on 20 October 1962.

I guess that with this passage from Hoffman, we don't even need to use the words "claimed by India" anymore. The Discoverer (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hoffman says "China had achieved its main aim of securing control over the Aksai Chin". That means it was only securing something that it already had.[21] What about [22],[23][24][25][26][27]? Even if any of your claims are believed that are dubious, they are just outnumbered. Capitals00 (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hoffmans book exclusively uses the verb 'secured' to refer to getting something that was not there earlier, such as: 'secured the army chief's support', 'weapons had to be secured from the United States', 'aid could be secured from the Americans', 'India had not secured independence', and so on. This tells us that 'securing control over the Aksai Chin' means that they did not have control earlier. This is not the place to discuss semantics, so I'm not going to discuss language with you again. Accept what the sources say, and don't pose linguistic arguments. Looking at URL's you have posted like [28] shows that you are trying to overwhelm us by simply searching Google Books for 'status quo' and posting random links here. The Discoverer (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't understand what he said, you are just trying to find a way to misrepresent him. As for "random links" I think you meant "mainstream view", if not then I am not surprised because this is just an extension of your disruption. Capitals00 (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Sardeeph revert

@Sardeeph: you don't get to remove 6,000 bytes of reliably sourced content with vague charges like this. What are your objections? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not good enough. For a highly contentious topic such as this we need to select the top-level sources like Maxwell, not just journal articles by unheard of scholars, and summarize them as fairly and proportionately as possible. Wikipedia writers are not permitted to select bits and pieces from sources and add them into the article in such a way that the article ends up implying a conclusion not supported in any of the sources. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative group effort. Slow down and break down your edits with clear edit summaries and explain here what you are trying to do with each change you make. Sardeeph (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no way a journalist will be regarded as a reliable source for 19th century history, and allowed to override Oxford University Press books. See WP:HISTRS. What next? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The changes made by Kautilya3 and deleted by Sardeeph are a good fleshing out and expansion of the relevant paragraphs. It balances different points of view from reliable sources like Warikoo, Mehra and Noorani. It doesn't remove any of the existing points from the text, but it juxtaposes them with the other viewpoint. This is what is expected from an encyclopedia (WP:BALANCE). It is surely possible that the text can be improved by copy editing. Therefore, I feel that the text in question should remain in the article as a starting point for any improvements that may be possible. The Discoverer (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sardeeph asks what I am trying to do. It is to basically set the context for the 1865 Johnson Line: the first edit looking at the Kashmir side and the second edit looking at the Turkestan side. Lamb and Maxwell and their followers (among whom are many Indians) made out that Johnson made his boundary line out of the blue and then Maharaja appropriated all the territory that he included. Some even suggested that it was a collusion between the Maharaja and Johnson. That is how Johnson ended up in Maharaja's service later. In their imagination, before Johnson's entry, Gulab Singh only had Ladakh as we understand it today. But the reality is quite different. Gulab Singh's conquests were squarely aimed at controlling trade routes, because trade brought in revenue. So, as soon as they conquered Ladakh, the Dogras took control of the trade routes as far as they could go without encroaching on the other kingdoms' territories. They did want to encroach on other territories too, but that is another story.

Many scholars tell us that "boundaries" are a European invention. Asians had "frontiers", i.e., fuzzy zones in the periphery where some sort of limited control might have been exerted but mainly to control trade routes and grazing lands etc. Sovereignty over those areas often overlapped. In this particular case, it turns out that the Chinese Turkestan had absolutely no interest in either Shahidulla or Aksai Chin. Even when the Kirghiz of Shahidulla went and complained to the Chinese ambans about Kanjuti raids, they said that it wasn't their problem. It was the British and the Russians who forced both these areas down the throats of the Chinese, for their own "Great Game" ends. This happened between 1890 and 1899. Before then, even if the British needed to go to Turkestan, they were escorted by the Kashmiris till Shahidulla and the Turkestanis received them there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sino-Indian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053454/http://www.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/OR_Part_2.pdf to http://www.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/OR_Part_2.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.subcontinent.com/1971war/surrender.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701042636/http://www.foia.cia.gov/CPE/POLO/polo-09.pdf to http://www.foia.cia.gov/CPE/POLO/polo-09.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080822215146/http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm to http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Archives

While the latest additions to the archives are welcome, reference to the publication by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, in 1961 entitled "Report of the Officials of the Government of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question" would be particularly useful. This is a compilation of over 300 pages of the various data and documents exchanged between the two sides over a number of meetings stretching over nearly a year, would be especially useful. This should be available as a hard copy in most major libraries. Pidiji (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sino-Indian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050507113230/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1962War/ to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1962War/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070304003142/http://www.bcasnet.org/login/viewarticle.php?pid=100&disp=1 to http://www.bcasnet.org/login/viewarticle.php?pid=100&disp=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619091847/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-12/16/content_3928187.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-12/16/content_3928187.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060530193456/http://www.fyjs.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=13872&fpage=1 to http://www.fyjs.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=13872&fpage=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070215144429/http://journal.frontierindia.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=7&Itemid=53 to http://journal.frontierindia.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=7&Itemid=53

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Question for Aftermath Section

Regarding the Aftermath section- Are there any conflicts that are still unresolved from the Sino- Indian War?GClark1 (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)GClark1

All of them. The war didn't resolve anything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Article quality

This article is a mess. We can gauge this with the enormous prevalence of the WP:WTW however. This is usually symptom of an article that has been written as a series of statements and counter-statements. A first step to improving this article would be to smooth out the prose. A lot of it could be cut. Sourcing needs to be improved. Even one of the maps has an error! --John (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your most recent changes. There are lots of distractions in this article. I am not sure about sources, I would consider replacing only if they have been specifically challenged. Until then you can make more grammatical improvements. Capitals00 (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, "however" is often needed when contrary facts are juxtaposed. Here is an example: "At this point, the Indian troops were in a position to push the Chinese back with mortar and machine gun fire. However, Brigadier Dalvi opted not to fire,...". You removed this instance of "however". (In fact, you removed every instance of "however" in the article, except for one in a quotation.) A reader will be definitely confused as to why the sentences next to each other are saying opposite things, or whether they are even saying opposite things.

It is perfectly fine to proof-read and copy edit text. But this is not the way. I don't think you understood what WP:WTW is saying either. This just seems to be some kind of a battle against "however". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Good writing does not consist of a series of statements and counter-statements. Using "however" gives more weight to the second statement which usually contravenes NOR and/or NPOV. That's why it's at WTW.John (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, in that case, you need to rewrite the content so that "however" becomes unnecessary. Simply removing "however" achieves nothing. It simply makes it misleading and confusing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Nizam's donation

Dadhush, you have been edit-warring over Nizam's contribution to the National Defence Fund. But the sources say clearly that this was after the 1965 war with Pakistan, when Lal Bahadur Shastri was the Prime Minister. The Sino-Indian War happened in 1962 when Jawaharlal Nehru was the Prime Minister. What relationship do you see with the Sino-Indian War? Please explain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, Lal Bahadur Shastri was Prime Minister from (9 June 1964 to 11 January 1966)- during this period the -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadhush (talk • contribs)

You didn't complete the sentence. Clearly, you have mixed up various things. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Verification

Can anyone verify this reference cited in the infobox "H.A.S.C. by United States. Congress. House Committee on Armed Services — 1999, p. 62". Maybe something can be found here. Otherwise its probably better to remove it.

References are also needed for the Indian strength in the ib [10,000–12,000]. It would be great if someone can add them. Gotitbro (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the HASC reference for now as I am unable to verify/find it. If someone can do that it would be great. For now the Margolis reference should suffice. Gotitbro (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Legende Legende, You have added here, a figure of 70-80,000 for Indian troops and cited Eric Margolis for that. Can you please provide a quotation from the source that establishes this fact? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Margolis does not say anything about the number of Indian troops at all, and you're correct in reverting the edits. Legende Legende has now been temporarily blocked for copyvio and unconstructive editing. -Zanhe (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Chinese map

Here is a Chinese map with actual army unit names. --Voidvector (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Attribution of claims about casualties and losses

Looked at the source The Lessons of History: The Chinese people's Liberation Army at 75 cited for casualities and losses. The source equally presents both Chinese and Indian claims about casualities and losses on page 343.

According to PLA records from archives, Indian casualties during the war were 4,897 killed or wounded and 3,968 captured. ⁵⁷ The Indian Defense Ministry, in 1965, showed 1,383 Indian soldiers killed, 1,696 missing in action, 3,968 soldiers captured, and 1,047 soldiers wounded.⁵⁸ In comparison, PLA casualties in the war were quite small, with 722 Chinese soldiers killed and 1,697 wounded.⁵⁹

Could anyone explain or refer to an explanation why

1. only the "Indian Defense Ministry" claims about Indian casualities and losses are cited, but not the so called "PLA records"?
   1. The "Chinese" claim is 4,897 killed or wounded
   2. The "Indian" claim is 1,383 killed + 1,047 wounded = 2430 killed or wounded, even if adding MIA that adds up to 4,126, significantly less than the Chinese claim
2. the cited Indian Defense Ministry claims ("1,383 Indian soldiers killed, 1,696 missing in action, 3,968 soldiers captured, and 1,047 soldiers wounded") are not annotated as "Indian claims"?
3. while we are at it, the cited Indian Army Chief, VP Malik claims (548 wounded soldiers) are not annotated as "Indian claims"?

While appearing to be neutral the the Wiki page currently presents only an official and inofficial Indian view on the Indian casualities and losses, but omits the Chinese view from the exact same source, which puts the Indian view into dispute. --PeterMl (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Dalai Lama and military aggression

Kip1234, when an edit is reverted, it is common practice to discuss it on the talk page. Your edit summary, "Thanks, I have now included a reference although it's common knowledge that it was China that had increased their military presence in border regions before India" completely missed the point on which your edit was reverted, WP:SYNTHESIS. Your reinstated text says:

After the suppression of the 1959 Tibetan uprising India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama, which prompted increased Chinese military aggression in Tibet and border regions, along with the resumption of patrols in Ladakh in April.

Where is the source even remotely saying that the granting of asylum to the Dalai Lama prompted Chinese miltiary aggression? I am afraid you are peddling your own theories and inserting WP:FAKE citations.

This is not a great source by the way. To justify a sentence like that you need evidence from international relations scholars, not a military historian. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Kautilya3 if you had read the book, then you would see that China DID increase military efforts in Western Tibet "in an effort to block escape routes leading to Kashmir and Nepal." The fact that many thousands of Chinese MILITARY personnel did try to hunt the Dalai Lama down is common knowledge and I have posted another (one of many available) source to highlight this for you: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/03/chinese-say-dalai-lama-india-tibet-1959. I understand that my phrasing was ambiguous and it was technically the ESCAPE of the Dalai Lama that prompted increased Chinese military aggression. I have tried to further edit the page to reflect the exact nature of what had taken place. China had been undergoing military patrols in Ladakh in 1960, which they later stopped during negotiations. So, it does (more than) remotely suggest/show that granting asylum to the Dalai Lama (his escape) - whichever term you would prefer to use - did directly influence increased Chinese military activity in Indian border regions and Tibet.I did not include a source about "international relations" (exactly what the military activity between India and China was) because it was specifically about military manoeuvres, not diplomatic relations (if that is what you meant). I also did NOT even suggest that it was the escape/granting asylum of the Dalai Lama which prompted the actual INVASION, only preceding increased Chinese military activity in border regions, which increased military tension between India and China and was a contributing factor towards the military activity that later took place there. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kip1234 (talk • contribs)

I gave you a blue link for international relations, which means that you should read that page to understand what that means, and refrain from speculating.

Nothing you say above establishes a causation between the grating of asylum and Chinese military aggression. So, until you find a source that really does it, you should drop this issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2020

Please change 722 to 2742 I believe the death toll of the Chinese should be higher. Throughout the Sino-Indian War, far more Chinese died then 722. 151 Chinese died at Namka Chu 70 Chinese died at Walong 300 Chinese died at Nuranang 175 Chinese died at IB Ridge 1300 Chinese died at Rezengla 225 Chinese died at Se La and Bomdi La 500 Chinese died at Gurung Hill 21 Chinese died at Spangur Gap In total 2742 Chinese soldiers died during the 1962 war Sujeetsinghgrewal (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

War between India and China occured in 1967

In non-political and historical view there were two wars had happened between India and China.

1. Sina - Indo war 1962, we can find information about this war in internet and through books as well.

2. 1967 war/conflict between India and China. This the unsung and untold war by the both governments.

Note: I request Wikipedia authorities to add the content regarding 1967 war. So that the history will live long. Mahesh baki (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The 1967 conflict is not generally called a "war". See Nathu La and Cho La clashes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Mention of Pakistan to downplay Indias deafeat pov

I fail to see the reasoning behind adding that India "won" subsequent wars with Pakistan is this some strategy to take away the magnitude of Indias defeat at the hands of China. Attempting to downplay Indias defeat by diverting to Pakistan is inappropriate and clearly an attempt to downplay this war by saying they won others with a much smaller nation. 2A02:C7F:3662:DD00:88:FC40:7D85:4A2 (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Only Chinese view of Situations leading to Sino Indian War is showed , The Real intentions and causes of war , and Indian Point view lacks in the article It is baised in judging 2409:4043:2E1B:9E53:0:0:2988:820F (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific edits, not general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with Op. For one, nehru' claim to a swathe of territory in the north-west, the Aksai Chin, a claim which was beyond anything the British had ever claimed and on an area which Chinese governments had treated as their own for at least a hundred years. Was one of the cause for war. That verified info is not shown in intro, which blatantly blames china for being unreasonable without adding such context.

In addition nehru used London's false claim that the Simla Conference had already legitimised the McMahon Line, despite the conference was never agreed to by the chinese. And the forward policy was really literally an invasion of chinese territory. Not the other way around.

Those facts are not even disputed by any historians YET are omitted/spun in the artivle to make it seem like it's all china's fault for being unreasonable. And as if india is completely innoccent here and never did anything wrong.

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/It-wasnt-China-but-Nehru-who-declared-1962-war-Australian-journalist-Neville-Maxwell/articleshow/33094229.cms 

The article intro seems corrupted by political bias and unwillingness to be neutral. If those info as i have outlined, are NOWHERE to be found despite they are the significant actual reasons that caused the war. I see no chinese pov here but only pro indian editors OMITTING AND HIDING real legit information as mentioned abovd, that should never at all be hidden.

I'm also aussie - not indian nor chinese yet even i can see this topic is too heavily corrupted by nationalism. Source - https://m.economictimes.com/opinion/et-commentary/1962-war-moving-on-from-our-created-china-myths/articleshow/32386638.cms 49.180.94.109 (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Change Chinese Deaths from 2,022 to 722 which is acknowledged by historical sources. Sovmosc (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TheImaCow (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Nationalistic POV

Intro paragragh has heavily one sided Indian nationalistic pov, and leaves out that not only Nehru rejected negotiations first and used London's false claim that the Simla Conference had already legitimised the McMahon Line, but even made new claims to non british colonised Aksai Chin ~ omitted in current article out of bias.

This article seems overly represented by indian nationalists because it omits all the real info they want to hide. Such info needs to be added in to improve articles's integrity to show the full story and not just a heavily censored one out of bias.

Ie. Nehru rejected the chinese negotiations, claimed a land area and told the chinese there will be no negotiations. Such info is not disputed. He also made the forward policy that isn't defensice if they made the first move. Hence the currebt intro paragraphs, calling it "defensive" is just whitewashing the fact that India had literally invaded chinese territory first.

To quote a excerp from a non nationalistic source:

extended quotation

Q: You suggest India's official account of the cause of the 1962 border war is false. What, in your view, is the truth? NM: By September 1962 the Indian “forward policy” of trying to force the Chinese out of territory India claimed had built up great tension in the Western (Ladakh) sector of the border, with the Chinese army just blocking it. Then the Nehru government applied the forward policy to the McMahon Line eastern sector and when the Chinese blocked that too India in effect declared war with Nehru's announcement on October 11 that the Army had been ordered to “free our territory”, which meant to attack the Chinese and drive them back. As General Niranjan Prasad, commander of 4 Division, wrote later: “We at the front knew that since Nehru had said he was going to attack, the Chinese were certainly not going to wait to be attacked” — and of course they didn't. That's how the war began. The Chinese attack was both reactive, in that General Kaul had begun the Indian assault on October 10, and pre-emptive because after that failure the Indian drive had been suspended to build up strength for a resumed attack. And in addition, the border dispute came after Nehru refused to negotiate with the chinese and to make it worse, he made a claim to the Aksai Chin, a claim which was beyond anything the British had ever claimed and on an area which Chinese governments had called their own for over a hundred years. Those are facts OMITTED deliberately in the article. Quote the excerpt below from source Q: What in your opinion were the policies, on both sides, that brought about the basic quarrel over the border? NM: As far as the McMahon Line was concerned India inherited the dispute with China, which the British had created in the mid-1930s by seizing the Tibetan territory they re-named NEFA. The PRC government was prepared to accept that border alignment but insisted that it be re-negotiated, that is put through the usual diplomatic process, to wipe out its imperialist origins. Nehru refused, using London's false claim that the Simla Conference had already legitimised the McMahon Line to back up that refusal — that was his Himalayan blunder. Then in 1954 he compounded that mistake by laying cartographic claim to a swathe of territory in the north-west, the Aksai Chin, a claim which was beyond anything the British had ever claimed and on an area which Chinese governments had treated as their own for at least a hundred years. To make matters worse, he ruled that there should be no negotiation over that claim either! So Indian policy had created a border dispute and also ruled out the only way it could peacefully be settled, through diplomatic negotiation. Source for excerpts above https://m.timesofindia.com/india/It-wasnt-China-but-Nehru-who-declared-1962-war-Australian-journalist-Neville-Maxwell/articleshow/33094229.cms

Alot of info is unfairly omitted and they should be added in to give fairer context and not to the comfort of pro indian editors who paints the forward policy as "defensive" despite anyone neutral can clearly see it as an indian invasion that encroached on chinese territory. Or that Simla Conference did not legitimise the McMahon Line as it needed the chinese signature and the document recognised china as having surzerignty over Tibet. Hence it's not even debatable that Nehru was maling a false claim that the Simla Conference had already legitimised the McMahon Line YET OMUTTED DELIBERATELY in the current article. Why is that? They don't like those facts and hide it which isn't honest.

or49.180.94.109 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Please note that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Maxwell is one writer among many. And, being a journalist rather than a scholar, he doesn't count very high among the sources suitable for Wikipedia. Please see WP:RS and in particular WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

I believe whatever exists on the main page has suitable citations. Please check them, and feel free to bring up whatever doesn't verify. We are certainly not going to take whatever Maxwell claims is the ultimate truth. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

fine, then just write Maxwell in as an aussie journalist whose source was based on interviews with real indian officers who had high ranks, and his report was initially made classified by the indian gov and is very relevant to this topic. He is a reliable authoritative figure given the fact that he is probably the ONLY indifferent NEUTRAL SOURCE unlike the biased indian nationalist or the chinese nationalists who are motivitated to push their favorite stories instead of the unflaterring reality. P.s. I'm the same user 49.180.94.109 aka OP but my mobile ip had itself auto changed. 49.180.21.215 (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear IP, the quotes and source based on an interview where the person being interviewed requotes 4th or 5th party are not that much reliable, its is no better than an opinion piece. This is not even an analysis but a quote of perons being interviewed. This does not make a good quality source. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why this article gives an impression that China invaded first? It is very clear from this Wiki that Indian created out-posts north of the McMahon Line, thus effective invading Chinese territory (I am neither an Indian nor a Chinese). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfoe (talk • contribs) 04:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It will be best if you check the sources that are cited and bring up any content that is not in agreement with the sources. Trying to ask big questions like this without appealing to sources tends to generate a WP:FORUMy debate, which we should avoid. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Reference Request for the First Paragraph

I added a reference request for the first paragraph. First I wonder if someone could use reliable references to clarify why "Tibet Uprising" is one of the causes to the war. Is it because the uprising is supported by Indian?

Second I wonder if anyone could clarify that why a "Forward Policy" that creates outposts in foreign territory, north of the McMahon Line is "defensive"; I think McMahon Line is considered the legal boarder? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfoe (talk • contribs)

Hi Selfoe, welcome to Wikipedia. Please remember to sign your posts by appending ~~~~ at the end of your posts.

I don't see where the article mentions "Tibet Uprising" as a "cause" for the war. It is mentioned as an event leading up to the war. You might well imagine that it caused tensions and suspicions on both sides. It appears that all the violent incidents happened after the Tibetan uprising, not earlier.

The McMahon Line was the prevailing border when India became independent. Whether it is "legal" is not an issue that Wikipedia can take a position on. Scholars would express varying views on it.

The "forward policy" is "defensive" in that all the forward posts were within India's borders as published in 1954. Those borders were mostly in line with the borders inherited from British India. China declared its idea of the border only in 1960 border negotiations. Several disagreements were identified. Most of the conflicts, if not all, happened in the areas that were in dispute. India had proposed that all the disputed areas should be demilitarised, but China did not accept it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3 thank you for your clarification. I do imagine that the Dalai events could lead to the war. However, we all agree that imagination is not knowledge; in order to have some information to be appear on the most important paragraph, that information has to be well-supported. Please correct me if I was wrong but neither China nor India used Dalai as their casus belli.

For the second point, I copied the following sentence:

"India, which had become independent in 1947, responded by declaring the McMahon Line to be its boundary"

So at least for India the McMahon Line has been legal. I am not an Indian or Chinese so I did not mean to support India's claim. Just wondering that if India successfully created outpost north of the their claimed line, then this "Forward Policy" is a successful offensive move to seize Chinese/Tibet territory, right?

I also notice that some Indian people believe that the legal Line should be in the north of McMahon Line, but I haven't find an official Indian claim. So McMahon Line is still the Claimed line for Indian government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.143.222.123 (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

-- Selfoe

The term "causus belli" is never used on the page. So I am afraid you are asking an abstract question, which we should avoid.

On the second question, yes, India regards "McMahon Line" as its border in Assam, but it is India's interpretation of where that line lies, which is published in the 1954 map and was never changed since then. China differs with India about hte location of the line in some places, some of the key places being the Namka Chu area, Migyitun-Longju area. There is not enough clarity on this issue because China does not publicly talk about the McMahon Line. It is only talked about by some writers like Neville Maxwell who are seen as taking a pro-Chinese position.

India has not explicitly addressed the issue of "legality" of McMahon Line, as far as I know, and it is not likely to do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya, thank you for your teaching! You seem very knowledgeable to me. Are a PhD in a related field? -- Selfoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.143.222.123 (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Not really. It is all experience gained through editing Wikipedia, reading and learning.

One other thing to keep in mind is that, while the disputes over the McMahon Line were cited by China as the reason for the war, the real conflict was in the west, in the Aksai Chin area. But being a cold and dry mountainous area, it wasn't very conducive for major armed operations. So the majority of the conflict was in the east. That might give one the wrong impression that the McMahon Line disputes were very important. It wasn't so. After the war, the Chinese forces went back to their original positions. But in Aksai Chin, they occupied all the areas they went into. The Aksai Chin conflicts are still going on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi I find it pretty clear from this page that India made some impressive advancement pre-1962. So I am still in doubt that the war "defensive" in the first paragraph is accurate or well-supported by literature. I am having a hard time finding a neutral reference that citing "forward policy" as defensive.

Again I do agree that Tibet uprising might be related to this 1962 war, but I am having a hard time to find evidence supporting a direct link between Tibet uprising and the 1962 war. Putting this information on the first paragraph might make people think that India's purpose of pre-1962 advancement was to liberate/support the Tibetan. Could you please share a reference that directly link Tibet uprising with the 1962 war? Do you feel that the border dispute is much more relevant to this war?

Regarding the "casus belli". Casus belli is there for any war and I feel that this page should be clearer about it. Casus belli is very important because it justifies military actions. In this 1962 case it is obvious from this page that both India and China justified their military actions by land-ownership: they both believe that some of land north of McMahon Line belong to them. This is why I believe that the land-dispute was much more important than the Dalai dispute for this instance. I might be wrong, though. -- Selfoe(talk

If you got the impression from this page that India made "impressive advancement" (I suppose you mean "advances"?) then I think the page is in much worse shape than I thought it was. So I looked through the Forward Policy section and found the claim that India had set up 43 forward posts "north of the McMahon Line". After checking the history, I found the edit was made by an editor called Yuje way back in 2007 [29], without citing any source for it. The existing source said they were in the Aksai Chin, nothing to do with McMahon Line. The editor was also pretty bombastic in talk page discussions.

The trouble is that this page was started quite a long time ago, when there weren't very many editors here. Even the editors who were here at that time wouldn't have been very knowledgeable about the subject. So the POV-pushers had a field day.

Coming back to the topic, you have asked for sources for the "defensive" nature of the forward policy. You can see:

• Hoffmann, Steven A. (2018) [first published 1990], India and the China Crisis, University of California Press, p. 97–, ISBN 978-0-520-06537-6
• Raghavan, Srinath (2010), War and Peace in Modern India, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 275–, ISBN 978-1-137-00737-7

As for the causus belli, I suppose you are asking what do the Chinese cite as the reason for going to war. I don't really know, but I would expect that they would say India crossed the McMahon Line and started encroaching into their territory. But that would be just an excuse because the differences in the two countries' view on the McMahon Line were quite minor. The real reasons would be a lot deeper. For that, you can consult:

• Garver, John W. (2006), "China's Decision for War with India in 1962", in Robert S. Ross (ed.), New Directions in the Study of China's Foreign Policy, Stanford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8047-5363-0, archived from the original (PDF) on 28 August 2017

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is a map of the India's "forward policy" (Chinese view). It is in Aksai Chin. The blue circles represent the posts that India is supposed to have set up between 1959 and 1962. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The aim of the forward policy

On [24 April 2007], an editor called Traing added this sentence, which has remained all these years in some form or other:

The aim [of the forward policy] was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops so as to cut off their supplies and force their return to China.

References

The edit was labelled as "compressing". I notice that all the portions of the older content that said anything about China were excised, and this tidbit was amplifed from earlier content by declaring it as the "aim".

• Calvin's student research does say stuff that supports the content, but none of the other sources does. Calvin says:

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.

A Home Minister isn't responsible for either the country's defence policy or foreign policy. His job is to manage the states and hold the country together. So whatever said was purely for domestic consumption. For the rest of the stuff about cutting off Chinese supplies, I see no evidence.

• The other sources either don't say anything about the matter or squarely contradict it. Gregory Clark says:

At the time it was obvious that India was pursuing a forward policy in all three sections of the 'line of control' border with China. Posts and patrols were being pushed further and further into territory that seemed clearly to lie on the Chinese side of that border.

By his own admission, Clark wrote a book which didn't receive any recognition and the China Quarterly dismissed it with one paragraph. It is not hard to see why if you think of what is the "Chinese side of that border". When the whole thing was a border conflict, which "border" is he speaking of?

• Noorani's piece is a book review, but it reveals quite interesting information about how the various players thought of the forward policy. The most revealing is the quote from L. M. Kaul, the General in charge of implementing the forward policy:

"I told them why it was important for us to establish posts all along our borders and that failure on our part to do so would result in the Chinese establishing these posts instead. ..."

That makes it pretty clear that it was a deterrence move, not an offensive one.

• The Official History states (p.69):

Perforce troops had to be dispersed into small isolated posts each barely 10 to 20 strong. Obviously, such posts could act only as flag posts, merely to show physical presence of Indian troops in new areas which they were located.

It also gives an interesting piece of statistical information:

In this way, by the end of September 1962, 36 Indian posts had been established in Ladakh[99] as against forty seven posts set-up by the Chinese in the area by that time.[100]

On the whole, I find that this was quite sub-standard editing. I will revert Traing's "condensing", and see what can be salvaged from the older version. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Subtle Nationalistic Edit Reversions and POVs

After reading sections on this talk page, I am seeing that a lot of the problems I have been noticing on this page have been highlighted by others here. I understand that the wars occurring in and around the Kashmir region are difficult to gather information on (owing to the fact that there are so many biased sources coming out of the countries involved in said conflicts) but I am noticing that this page seems to be straying away from a neutral POV and as Kautilya mentioned in this talk page, the coverage of information on this article is very narrow. My complaint here is that a lot of my edits have been pretty baselessly reverted (when they were quite straightforward) whenever they discuss the details of what is regarded as India's losses to China in this war. The facts are that China was not present in Kashmir randomly, and all of their territorial gains in Kashmir are very obvious (the Aksai Chin region captured from India following the 1962 war and the Shaksgam Valley taken from Pakistan following the 1963 Sino-Pakistani Agreement) and internationally recognized on all fronts. The fact that this war led to a de facto border change in Kashmir is not disputable because that would be blind denial. Further proving my point, it is well-known that following the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-48, India was in control of two-thirds of Kashmir (before any Chinese involvement in Kashmir) while Pakistan was in control of one third. Aside from my explanation here, the edits I made were cited (and not just by a singular source) and all of them recognize the same things I have highlighted above. The map I added into the infobox also shows the territorial shifts and claims/control. I am urging that this issue be addressed as it is highly important that Wikipedian articles remain neutral in their POV of such topics. I am not getting into the discussion of who invaded who's land or what sparked the war because that is a different topic entirely - what the point is in terms of sheer land administration is that the land was under Indian administration before falling under total Chinese control after this war.

Xeed.rice (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Let us not worry about the bigger issues at this time, but focus on the infobox changes you have made. The claim you made in the edit summary, "what is today known as Aksai Chin fell under de facto Chinese control following the 1962 war", is clearly false. Aksai Chin was under the Chinese control well before the war. They completed their highway the in 1957, and they eliminated an Indian police party at the Kongka Pass in 1959. All that happened in the 1962 war is that they eliminated whatever pockets of resistance India had put up to block their further advance. So the gain of territory was not the main point of the war, but rather the assertion of a claim line. We used to have informative summary in the infobox earlier. I don't know what happened to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do not jump to conclusions regarding POV, when your edits clearly require WP:CONSENSUS. Firstly, you are citing blogs and websites which are clearly not WP:HISTRS; secondly, as noted above by Kautilya and as this article and in-depth references itself explain (if you would've read it) the territorial possession or control clearly pre-date the war. Your additions were clearly misinformed at best or worse misleading. Gotitbro (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on25ober 2020

Please Mention Northeast frontier agency as a present day Arunachal Pradesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4066:21D:321C:0:0:EC4:88AD (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)