Jump to content

Talk:Sino-Indian War/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Territorial changes should be omitted from the infobox

It is a bit strange to say that the result was 'status quo ante bellum', because to begin with, India had posts in Aksai Chin before the conflict, which ceased to exist after 21 November 1962. Secondly, any territorial changes depend on the base date considered as the ante bellum. Even if the reference date is fixed, sources will differ with regard to the areas controlled on a particular date. Thus, the description of territorial changes has to be nuanced, and it is not suitable to put it in the infobox, which is meant to include simple, precise facts. The Discoverer (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, the posts were till october 18 and in october 19 all Indian posts were pushed out of aksai chin and the next day (October 20) china invaded/started the war so staus quo ante bellum means the situation of war in october 19. Pls fact check proeprly also the proper source are also linked there and kautaliya (a senior user accecpted the fact) so staus quo ante bellum is 100% correct.

Also by the way, the loosing of aksai chin from India to china was a gradual process India never controlled full aksai chin and even a road was constructed in 1956 by china in aksai chin, India gradually lost all of aksai chin and aksai chin was totally lost it in october 19 when chinese troops fully pushed indian troops from aksai chin that day just a day before starting of the war or invasion by china. So staus qup ante bellum (situation before the war) is perfectly correct.

Also see the the no territorial changes citation/source it explicitly states that "When border skirmishes escalated into war between China and India in 1962, China first showed India that, if provoked, the PLA could overrun it. Then, having made that point, China withdrew its troops to their original positions."

And the original position here mean pre war situation which was in october 19. Just a day before starting of war hope this helps buddy! -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtadi143 (talk • contribs)

I accepted nothing. And The Discoverer is even more "senior" to me. You better listen to him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Swtadi143, 'experience' counts for nothing on Wikipedia. The only thing that counts is what the reliable sources say. You are right in stating the principle that it would have been status quo ante bellum if the Chinese had to withdraw to their positions of 19 October 1962. Unfortunately, you have got your facts wrong. The Chinese did not withdraw to their positions of 19 October 1962, rather, the Chinese declared a ceasefire and withdrew to their positions of 7 November 1959. In October 1962, before the war, India had posts at places like Sirijap and the Spanggur Lake area, which were captured by the Chinese and have been under Chinese control since the end the war. Similarly, as of 7 September 1962, India had a post at Dehra Compass, which is under Chinese control today. Thus, you can see that the positions at the beginning of the war (19 October 1962) were different from the post-war positions. I would also like to point out that the so-called 7 November 1959 positions refer to a Chinese claim, and not to a mutually established line. The Discoverer (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The eastern sector went back to 7 November 1959 and western sector (aksai chin) went back to 19 october 1962 , so that basically means pre war boundaries aka staus quo ante bellum. I dont know why you guys are having such hard feelings to accept it when the sources where clearly mentioned and I gave my explanations on western side not eastern side, your correct that It went on 1959 border on eastern side. Kautilya3 -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtadi143 (talk • contribs)

They did not go back to 19 October 1962, as The Discoverer has stated quite emphatically. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Kautilya3 ok whatever you guys know in this case seems better than me, most historical videos show your guys facts where India losses aksai chin in 1962 may be y'all are right, I agree with you all now consensus reached. You were correct that India did control some parts of aksai chin even just before war. Thanks for discussion.
I also removed sino indian war from staus quo ante bellum wikipedia page since a conensus is now reached about the result that it is not a example of staus quo antebellum.
Thanks for your understanding, Swtadi143. One could say that it was status quo ante bellum on the eastern side, but it was not so on the western side. The Discoverer (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, now that we got that out of our way, the idea that the Chinese "withdrew to their positions of 7 November 1959" is quite seriously wrong. Please see the LAC of 7 November 1959. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes correct I agree with you & dicoverer the western side had different LAC before war and It was radically changed post war.
You are right, Kautilya3, what I should probably have said is, 'the Chinese declared a ceasefire and announced that they would withdraw to their positions of 7 November 1959.'
Nehru called the status quo bluff right then, when he said, "There is no sense or meaning in the Chinese offer to withdraw twenty kilometers from what they call 'line of actual control' (...) Advancing forty or sixty kilometers by blatant military aggression and offering to withdraw twenty kilometers provided both sides do this is a deceptive device which can fool nobody."
The Discoverer (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Glad we agree. There is a lot of wooly-headed talk in India media about the "LAC of 7 November 1959". We need to be absolutely clear that such a thing does not exist. I wrote about it quite a bit about it at the Talk:2020 China-India skirmishes page. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
In fact, even the language of "Chinese withdrew" is not quite correct. They may have withdrawn troops by 20 km, at least for a few decades, but they did not relinquish the territory that was occupied. That is not what is called a "withdrawal" in normal parlance. We should just say that they retained all the territory that they had occupied.
There is only one exception to this as far as I know. In the Demchok sector, they came up to the Koyul ridge in the middle part, but withdrew to the right bank of the Indus River. Here, they did relinquish "control", but they still retained some kind of title to it because they have objected to India doing any kind of construction in that part of the Indus valley. Eventually, India built the Umling La road in the part that they Chinese did not occupy in 1962. So there is some clever gaming going on with respect to the LAC there. Not without reason that the CIA refrains from marking the LAC in the Demchok sector. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Vijay Prashad, Darker Nations 2007

An 1888 map of the Empire of China by Edward Stanford narrowed down to the borders with Bhutan (Chumbi Valley on the left, Tawang tract on the right)
The expanding Chumbi valley in December 2020

Prashad has a chapter "Tawang" to discuss the start of the Sino-Indian War in his book, Darker Nations. The chapter is named after a town that was part of the border disputes leading up to the war. In this chapter, Prashad argues that the conflict was due to the recent adoption of European norms of nations by these two countries. He goes on to name a variety of exchanges between Nehru and Zhou between 1950 to 1962 to provide context to the conflict. He also explains cultural shifts that occurred in both India and China that led to the development of desire for militaristic action in both countries. I don't have the energy to make the edits as I'm not clear on what this Wikipedia entry currently says; however, Prashad's source seems like a great tool to introduce neutrality. I want to acknowledge that Prashad *does* blame the European founded notion of nations and borders. However, hopefully the editors here won't find that a problem, at this time. Mimercha (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid this is arm-chair theorising which doesn't face the facts head on.
A line from our article on Doklam says:

The victorious Chinese General ordered a land survey, in the process of which the Chumbi valley was declared as part of Tibet.[34] The Sikkimese resented the losses forced on them in the aftermath of the war.[35]

The "Sikkimese" were allies of Tibet, in fighting against Nepal. Nevertheless their land was grabbed by Tibet, or rather its Chinese master. Take a guess which year this happened in. 1792! Did China already adopt the "European norms" by then?
A map of the Chumbi valley in 1888 (from a map of the "Chinese Empire") is at the top. The green intrusion on the left is the Chumbi valley. The green intrusion on the right is the Tawang tract that Prashad wrote about.
The map on the bottom is the position in 2020. The old Chumbi Valley stopped at Asam. By 1980s or so, Bhutan was forced to give up the area till the square-shaped protrusion. Now China wants more. The Panda village was built in the Bhutanese territory a couple of months ago. This is not the end of it, of course. All those dotted lines that emanate in all kinds of directions, they are all claim lines left around for future contestation. The OpenStreetMap marks all of them as "disputed border (BT-CN)".
Sikkim, and Bhutan are both allies, supposedly part of the "great family of China". This is what happens to "family". What chance to do the others have? "European norms" still? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hatnote

The hatnote should include Nathu La and Cho La clashes. 216.8.185.53 (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

Add " Theoshay (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GPRIT00.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

India sink conflict 1967

Can we please The indo china conflict of 1967 in The aftermath s section please! Odinson878 (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It is there already. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2022

Australia provided weapons, ammunition and other supplies to the Indian military

http://www3.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1963/27.html 2001:8004:1400:596F:718F:EBF9:6DE1:5A26 (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AwfulReader (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Indo-Soviet relations

Lead states: "The lack of involvement from the United States and Britain resulted in the development of prosperous relations between India and the Soviet Union. These relations are still maintained to this day."

How is this possible when the Soviet Union does not exist anymore? 220.158.158.14 (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Removed it. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Chinese treatment of Indians

I've noticed that the article mentions India's treatment of Chinese people during the war, which I personally find both shocking and deeply appalling, and it is certainly something more people should be discussing and debating today. (That being said, detaining 3,000 Chinese civilians in India for 2-5 years does seem slightly less severe than the incarceration of 120,000 Japanese people in America, much less China's own "comparable actions", yet the Indian government should indeed apologise, it is the morally sound thing to do, and a betrayal of India's founding ideals not to do so).

Anyway, having personally read a bit about this conflict and its background, I am also genuinely curious, as regardless of which side you would sympathise with, there were undoubtedly considerable human rights violations by Mao also, against ethnic and racial minority groups in China.

For example, if Mao did not do what the Nehru government did, and treated China's Indian commuity and expatriates with decency and kindness, then that is surely worth mentioning. (I do vaguely remembering reading somewhere from an old source that some Indians in China were treated well, even given free medical treatment, but I don't have that source right now). Yet if Mao did persecute Indians in China during that same time period, then that is also worth mentioning and discussing.

I'm not sure if this might apply to this case, and are worth mentioning or not, or if others more familiar with the situation have similar sources from elsewhere. The dark shadow of war hurt many within China - Nov 18, 2012 Obiwanbridget (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Obiwanbridget, thanks for bringing it up. Yes, it would be worthwhile including a small section on the Chinese treatment of Indian nationals. But as you note, there is not a great deal of information available about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
But should the source not be added, with a new section perhaps? Do you have any access to means or materials which might provide any kind of insight into this? Obiwanbridget (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Obiwanbridget: What domiciled Indians were there in China in months and days leading up to the India-China war? The few officials, students, or others of temporary residence in China would have left as the climate for war approached. It was nothing like what it is now.

The Chinese in India, however, is an Indian community several generations old. As far as I remember from my readings, it substantially increased after the Japanese occupation of China in the 1930s and especially during the Second World War. I have just disabused the Chinese in India page of the kind of racism that I thought had disappeared with the private-school-educated Indians living the never-never land of a British colonial past. Edgar Thurston was a Raj-era ethnologist.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2022

china had only 10,000, not 80,000 read this in a book about the Sino-Indian war Ithekid (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

@Kautilya3: The casualties statistics I added were provided by T.N. Kaul.

2nd modification is changing "Status quo ante bellum in Assam Himalaya" to "Chinese withdrawal from Arunachal Pradesh". The wording used by sources for the location in question is "Arunachal Pradesh". Chinese withdrawal from this region happened after international pressure but it was still "withdrawal".

Let me know your issues with these additions. Capitals00 (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

T. N. Kaul was the General in charge of the eastern sector, seriously involved, and also quite incompetent. I also find Jayat Kumar Ray to be quite wishy-washy as a scholar. His book is extremely opinionated.
Status quo ante bellum as the accurate description given the Garver quote, which is also quite accurate. They went back to the old positions and reinstated the pre-war LAC. "Withdrawal" makes no sense becuase they didn't withdraw from anywhere with respect to the pre-war position. Liegl is unnecessary also because he is not a balanced scholar. His speciality is only Chinese politics. Notice his amusing claim that the disputed territory was "paritioned"! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
India supposedly "received 82,000 square kilometres of Arunachal Pradesh". Received it from whom? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
T.N. Kaul has been added under "Indian sources" and Jayanta Kumar Ray seems reliable enough for this information. It's just a figure provided by Indian sources.
Can we still change "Assam Himalaya" to "Arunachal Pradesh"? Capitals00 (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Indian Official History, written by reputed by military hisitorians based on actual evidence, is quite good and accepted by scholars. Kaul is just pulling figures out of thin air. Totally baseless claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Do you have any issue with changing "Assam Himalaya" to "Arunachal Pradesh"? Capitals00 (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Only a mild one because it is an anachronistic term here. I have changed it to North-East Frontier because that is being used. "Assam Himalaya" is a perfectly fine term actually because agencies were attached to provinces/states in those days.
I also mistook your T.N. Kaul for B.M. Kaul. Sorry about that. But still, those figures look quite random to me. Let me dig into it a bit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The Official History says the Western Command estimated 2,500 Chinese casualties, but disbelieves it. It estimaes 1,000 in the West. For the East, it didn't even bother to try. So, T.N.Kaul's 10,000 is out of whack. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Result/territory

Its a well known fact that Aksai Chin was never even controlled by India and this war ended without any territory change. So why this should not be mentioned on infobox like all other articles? The current use of result field of this article looks too bloated and unnecessary. To mention status quo only for north-east but not Aksai Chin looks utterly misleading. Article body is for lengthy explanations, not infobox. The result field should only say "Chinese victory" while the territory field should just say "no territorial change". >>> Extorc.talk 20:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. War also location mentions "Assam" but no result about it is mentioned. Current version looks very ambiguous. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 21:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
  • The entire result field contradicts the hard won consensus at Talk:Sino-Indian_War/Archive_10#Territorial_change which was about fixing the result and territory field. The false claim that China took Aksai Chin was added on 17 June 2021 [1] by an editor and then the result was expanded by Kautilya3 on the same day.[2] But I don't see any consensus for these edits. I have removed it because the last discussion was very lengthy and I had ensured addressing every contrary point. Unless new consensus is gained there is no need to make these modifications. Capitals00 (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't see what was supposedly agreed in the 2017 thread. There is neither a proposal nor sources supporting it. I only see disagreements. Saying nothing about the result is not viable, as it appears to have been the case when Swtadi143 started editing. He made a resonable edit based on his/her knowledge and I fixed it. If you want to make a proposal, please go ahead. We don't want a yet another meandering discussion with no conclusion in sight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
If there was no conclusion then why it remained as is until mid 2021 until it was unilaterally changed by you? Capitals00 (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
wHO DO rs SAY WON? Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: There is no doubt that China won, but there is also no doubt that no change in territory happened. Shouldnt infobox only mention these two things i.e. "Chinese victory" and "No territorial change"? Any additional details should be discussed on article, not infobox. Capitals00 (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
That is delusional. Four good sources have been cited to say that territorial change has happened. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: This claim was already debunked in the 2017 discussion. Not a single source confirms any territorial change happened with this war. India never controlled Aksai Chin. Capitals00 (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
If you have already debunked them, then it should be easy enough to copy-paste what you said. Just about these four sources. Plus there is going to be a fifth source, which I will add as soon as I can find it. You can debunk that as well. Then we can have a discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
"This claim was already debunked in 2017 discussion" I said. I haven't said that these four sources were debunked, though Taylor was. Nevertheless, I can do it now.
1st source, "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." = We all agreed in 2017 that China occupied Aksai Chin since 1959 and India never controlled it. What's new here?
2nd source, "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. = This source was over here that the source is dubious because no other reliable sources make this claim and it does not provide any details beyond "may have" because it is necessary to know what was occupied.
3rd source, "Their aim in 1962 in the Western Sector was to remove 43 Indian posts (out of 72) which they considered were across their Claim Line. However, there was one exception and that was in the Depsang Plain (southeast of Karakoram Pass) where they seemed to have overstepped their Claim Line and straightened the eastward bulge." = Are we really using a news source for this? The author of the article is a major general (see WP:PRIMARY) and comes with a number of misleading claims. Such as "whole of Kailash Range passed into Chinese hands" (which was always under Chinese control), and "Chushul" does not exist in "no man's land". China had captured Rezang la in Chushul but had to withdraw.[3]
4th source: "According to Yun Sun, analyst at the Stimson Centre in Washington DC, the PLA were seeking to assert [in 2020] the line they had reached following their offensive in 1962. Though China maintains that they have been holding this line since even earlier, 7 November 1959" = Yes there is no evidence to contrary. Capitals00 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

My goodness! This is all you have? You are going to shoot down esablished scholars with your own WP:OR? You have been here long enough to know you can't do that!

  • 1st source is Srinath Raghavan, who has been praised with superlatives such as "one of the very best diplomatic and military historians working on modern South Asia"[4].
  • 2nd source is Taylor Fravel, Sloan Professor of Political Science at MIT, and author of multiple books on Chinese military and diplomatic affairs.
  • 3rd source is Maj. Gen. P.J.S. Sandhu, the lead author of the following book, a history of the 1962 war based on Chinese military sources.
    • Sandhu, P. J. S.; Shankar, Vinay; Dwivedi, G. G. (2015), 1962: A View from the Other Side of the Hill, Vij Books India Pvt Ltd, ISBN 978-93-84464-37-0
and numerous others listed at United Service Institution.

You think you can shoot all these experts down based on your own rudimentary understanding which doesn't go much beyond the two words "Aksai" and "Chin"? You are out of your mind!

You can only counter established sources with other sources of equal or better quality. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Not OR if information is disputed on verifiable basis. Where I have denied the information from 1st source (Srinath Raghavan) and 4th source (Manoj Joshi)? Only Taylor Fravel (who was also refuted in 2017 discussion) and P.J.S. Sandhu (a WP:PRIMARY) are the disputed sources.
"Vij Books India Pvt Ltd" is an Indian military books publisher which allows military members to publish their accounts, thus publishing a book here alone does not make anyone reliable. Surely you won't accept Chinese military sources on the subject. Capitals00 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
As for providing reliable sources to counter the information, a number of sources have been already provided earlier. Though I won't repeat them for now. Here are some more:-
  • Rong Ying (2002-12-20). "40 years after the Sino-Indian 1962 war". Rediff.com. "Chinese frontier guards would observe a ceasefire along the entire Sino-Indian border, and from December 1, 1962, the Chinese frontier guards would withdraw 20km from the line of actual control existing along the entire border on November 7, 1959. In the eastern sector, the counter-attack of self-defence was launched in the area of Chinese territory north of the traditional boundary, but the Chinese frontier guards were ready to withdraw from their positions to the line of actual control, that is, 20km north of the McMahon Line. In the middle and western sectors, the Chinese side would withdraw 20km from the line of actual control. What must be pointed out is that the positions of the Chinese frontier guards after their stated withdrawal would be much farther away from their positions before September 8, 1962."
Old sources confirming the above
  • Asian Recorder. 1963. p. 4967. The Chinese Defence Ministry announced on November 30 that its troops would begin their withdrawal in N - EFA and Ladakh and pull back 20 kilometres behind the " actual line of control " on November 7 , 1959.
  • Boulger, D.C.; Oriental Institute (Woking, Surrey); East India Association (London, England) (1964). Asiatic Review. East & West. p. 55. Despite India's unwillingness to comply with China's suggestion Chinese troops did fall back to the 20 kilometres area behind the line held in 1959.
There was absolutely no change in the territory with this war since China had withdrawn 20 kilometers from its 1959 line, whereas India refused to withdraw 20 kilometers. The result of the war was not entirely in favor of China. When writing the infobox, the information should concern only what happened in this war and it is uncontroversial to say that no territory change happened. Capitals00 (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
This is even more WP:OR, and a pretty silly and fallacious one. Withdrawing 20 km does not mean that the line of control shifted back by 20 km! That is just a demilitarisation measure. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Both India and China published their idea of where the line was. The two versions were in broad agreement, and they were documented by the US Army and the Colombo powers. There are little differences, which were attempted to be exploited by China in the recent standoff. But they make no difference to the broad issue of territorial change. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
If "status quo" is not the result then the mainstream view should differ on this. The "pre-war" position was restored. Is there any doubt? And if there is any doubt is it widespread? Its been 60 years since this war so there should be no confusion. >>> Extorc.talk 14:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment Firstly, I observe that there is no dispute that this should be reported as a Chinese victory. Per MOS:MIL, there is clear guidance as to the use of the result parameter in the infobox: it is to report who won. It should not be used for multiple dot points as done in this article. To the matter of territorial changes, I will make these observations. In the west (and particularly Aksai Chin), the borders had only been loosely defined (multiple times) by the British and not "controlled" by either the British or Chinese. There is no clear status quo ante. In the east, there was a delineation that had been mark on the ground and established a status quo ante of sorts. However, this differed slightly from what had been marked on maps. Of course, both sides had differing views on who owned what, otherwise there would have been no dispute. A view taken at arms-length from the dispute is that the borders were fuzzy - particularly in the west. Asserting a change in territory post bellum is to assert defined territory ante bellum. One can only do this by choosing one of many options which would ipso facto be a Wiki POV and WP:OR since there does not appear to be a consensus in the independent sources. It would also assert in a Wiki voice a POV favouring the initial claim of one side or the other by asserting that one side lost territory relative to the other. Consequently, it is my view that Wiki should remain silent on this question, confining itself to describing where the borders lay at the end of the day without the appearance of being partisan.

As the result parameter is not for dot points, I have removed these. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I have reinstated the points. They are necessary to describe the true end of the conflict, as the current description of "Chinese victory" is under contention. MOS:MIL is a recommendation, not a policy; It cannot be enforced while discussions regarding NPOV concerns are ongoing over the same material. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
CapnJackSp, thank you for your subsequent self-revert. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Doubt

"Chinese victory" is not under dispute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well there is a doubt, its being expressed here, so unless you can find RS saying China won we can't. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Doubt over what? Victory was Chinese but no territorial change happened with this war because it ended in status quo ante bellum. Capitals00 (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
If nothing changed, it was a draw, not a victory. This is my wp:or your wp:or does not trump it, this is why we need wp:rs saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The result itself does not appear to be at issue, and why should the apodictic be contested in such offhand a fashion? The war was fought at multiple fronts, and Ladakh was but one theatre thereof. The crux of the discourse is whether the Chinese manoeuvres in Aksai Chin in the course of the war spawned material changes to the then prevailing Line of Actual Control or simply enforced it intransiently and an editorial consensus should establish either of the propositions. Offhand, laconic comments foregrounding red-herrings (the war being claimed to be a draw, for instance) are unhelpful and do a disservice to the developing discourse. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Dupey and Dupey the collins Encyclopedia of military history, page 1405 "Nehru rejected the Chinese terms for settling the dispute, but since the defeated Indians had no desire to renew the war, informal truce prevailed...". Enough for me to say China won, as I said we go by what RS says. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sino-Indian war: An Indian strategic failure

User @Kautilya3, History isn't written on the narrative of Indian republic specially Pro-BJP narrative.

The war was ultimately a strategic failure for India for several reasons:

  1. Lack of preparation: India was caught off guard by the Chinese invasion and had not adequately prepared for the conflict. The Indian military was ill-equipped, poorly trained, and lacked the necessary logistical support to effectively defend the border.
  2. Poor intelligence: India's intelligence agencies failed to provide accurate information about the Chinese troop build-up and movements, leaving India unaware of the impending attack.
  3. Strategic miscalculation: India believed that its diplomatic and military efforts would deter China from launching an attack, but China's determination to secure its border region and assert its dominance in the region proved stronger.
  4. Political leadership: India's political leadership was divided and lacked clear direction, which further hindered the country's response to the conflict.
  5. Chinese superiority: China's military was better equipped and better trained, and they had the advantage of surprise, making it difficult for India to mount an effective defense.

India sources:

Foreign sources:

Now @Kautilya3 it is better if you accept the defeat instead of Coping further, thank you. ⭐️ Starkex ⭐️ 📧 ✍️ 08:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Your edit has been reverted in accordance with MOS:MIL. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Kindly can you refer me please which section of MOS:MIL have been violated by my edits? ⭐️ Starkex ⭐️ 📧 ✍️ 09:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sino-Indian_War/Archive_11&oldid=1183075449"