Talk:Sino-Indian War/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Aksai Chin

The fighting was mostly along the McMahon line. The previous version misleadingly implied that the war was about the highway in Aksai Chin, which of the course the Chinese held even before the war started. Also, the 1959 Tibet uprising and the fact that Nehru granted asylum to the Dalai Lama is an important piece of background information. The accounts of Mao's decision making process certainly put more emphasis on this than on the legalistic border dispute issues. Kauffner (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that a disputed Himalayan border was the main pretext for war where India insisted McMahon Line as legal border and China always deemed it illegal and subject to negotiation. And I think the "Forward Policy" is the direct factor causing armed conflict. I suggest the "Forward Policy" be added into lead section. Xingdong (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Forward Policy is a direct military challenge to China, and must be the immediate, direct cause for the war. It alone justifies a reaction from China. This is not to say that there were no other underlying reasons too. Nehru’s refusal to negotiate and his intention in Tibet were reasons. (He had intention in Tibet, even Gavner, whom I think has been quoted out of context, agreed as much!). I don’t think you can ever say “this one is the only reason”.

The main theatre of the war was alone the McMahon line because China wanted to inflict maximum penalty so to ensure a longer period of tranquility. Because India could not support Aksai Chin easily, China figured it could hurt more in the east. This is according to Gavner, who said that China believed that India was building up the conflict to a war!WikiCC (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Background - Aksai Chin Boundary

It should be mentioned the only formal boundary proposal made by the British to China was the McCartney-MacDonald line in 1899. It was China’s intention to accept but never got around to formally notifying Britain because China was at the verge of collapsing due to the imperial colonialism of some countries, including Britain.

The Chinese road G215 was mainly north of the McCartney MacDonald line except for a section of some 12Km, which can’t be definitely determined due to survey accuracy.

“and Britain decided to hand over Aksai Chin to Chinese administration as a buffer against Russian invasion.”. “hand over” is not the right term as all the British did was just drawing lines on maps, and never actually was in control of the area. WikiCC (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets end the controversy

Well,this article has been subjected to much controversy so lets all act in good faith and stop undoing/deleting other's work.If you want to delete something please at least give reason for doing it and of course give your reference. I am going to make a few alteration in page (with proper references)so wish me luck and lets hope this article will shine with true wikipedian spirit.

                                                             Cheers,
                                                       --Swift&silent (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Done! I hope you all like my edit in Background section.I know its a LONG edit but you are free to trim it.But please dont delete key facts and points. Cheers, Swift&silent (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC) My edit was reverted because it contained copyrighted info.Will try to improve my edit.Here is a link to information [1].I encourage felow 'wikians' to visit site yourself and edit as they see fit. Cheers Swift&silent (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Swift&silent Wikipedia should not, and will not become a place where anyone can dump their personal opinions. What one thinks is "absolutely right", might be "absolutely wrong" from another person. All quotes in wikipedia should be coming from reliable sources, whether you agree upon, or disagree. I usually don't quote sources from either India, or China, for well-known reasons. Remember, nothing can be neutral. But, we need to respect reliable sources, faithfully. I always encourage fellow Wikipedians to bring their edits to this "Talk" page first, after gaining enough consensus, implement them. I will try my best to stick to Wikipedia guidelines, and I hope my fellow wikipedians do the same too. Xingdong (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

@Xingdong You said "Wikipedia should not, and will not become a place where anyone can dump their personal opinions" I really appreciate it buddy but your comments given above betray you e.g. "There got to be reasons why China holds one of the 5 permenent seats in UN Security Council and India obviously can't comprehend that".This article is about Indo-Sino WAR which happened half century ago NOT about membership of UN Security council.And your quote about Chinese logistical problems during war "This is one of the excuses some people made in order to comfort themselves." What comforts people(and it seems dicomforts you) is clearly out of scope and is an open provocation to people to react.Dont act like you own wikipedia or this article.I would suggest you to open a website or blog to express your personal views. Also,your quote that "Had Nehru known the consequence of military provocation to China, he would had wisely stopped it. But people like to gamble. Had Hitler known he would lose in WW2, he wouldn't have invaded East Europe and Russia. Simple as that" compares Hitler and Nehru whether intentionally or unwittingly.These type of personal attacks on historical figures are completely unjustified and will definitely lead to notice to admin for either user warning/removal/article locking as they deem fit. No hard feelings.If you think that I made an unjustified remark then by all means tell me. Cheers, Swift&silent (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Swift&silent, when I mentioned Wikipedia guidelines above, I meant the article itself, not the Talk page. Although the Talk page is not a forum for general discussion, the arguements around the topic should be allowed. My comments were in support of Vontrotta's suggestion that the "Cuban missile crisis" should be removed from the article. The comparison was about people gambling, not about massacre, etc. There was nothing wrong about it. If you feel offended by my comments, I am sorry about that.

As you can see also from archived Talk pages, I have been subject of too many personal attacks from some people. Can you honestly tell me who are they and why are they doing this?

I always believe India and China are great countries, and maybe we can learn some lessons (be it good or bad) from this war. If we human beings don't learn, history may repeat itself. BTW, welcome to Wikipedia. Xingdong (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

@Xingdong Thanks for welcome.Please for guidlines see top of the page "This is NOT a forum" which means (as far as I understand it) that posts should be about articles while you keep talking about out of topic points like current UN seats and membership. Also about others who attacked you,they will be warned/banned by admins if they deem necessary.I looked into archives of discussion and frankly you have provoked others several times.If you post comments like "India cant comprehend that" then what exactly do you expect? Anyway I do agree that China and India are far too powerful to engage in any kind of future warfare.As of your comments that "Westerns powers are trying to divide them" I cant say much unless you provide us with a proof or reliable reference.Though I admit an India-China alliance would definitely surpass any other superpower. Swift&silent (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Swift&silent, I think we spent too much mouth water on this already and to continue is pointless. Let's roll our sleeves and do some constructive work. At the beginning of this page, User:John Smith's suggested we clean up citations. I think that's good idea. I know this is too much for me alone, so maybe collectively we can do it? Xingdong (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

@Xingdong I remember a while ago I pointed your attention to your provoking comments with intention of making you remove/edit them but you wont listen.Now we have a flame war between Indian-chinese with article completely out of scope.You must be really proud. Cheers, Swift&silent (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to contribute to this article constructively but Xingdong, if I may add, making a claim like the debacle "brutally exposed the Indian weakness" and its "tacit alliance with the United States against China" only adds fuel to the fire. If you refrain from making edits like that, then I'll certainly move forward. Vedant (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nehru tacitly allowwed CIA to carry out on Indian soil covert operations in Tibet against China. I think Calvin, Gavner, and Maxwell all touched upon that, and is now not a secret anymore.WikiCC (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't feel Maxwell was a particularly neutral commentator on the war so I view his claims with some skepticism. Not to mention, his predictions haven't really come true so I'm not really convinced he's credible. I will agree though that he has researched this war in great detail so his analysis shouldn't be totally discounted but it's very clear he has a strong bias. I am also willing to accept that mistakes were made on both sides and that plenty of blame can be laid on India. However, the same de-classified documents released by the CIA also note that India had a stronger territorial claim than China and that China partly through "diplomatic deceit" lulled the Indians into a false sense of security that China wouldn't attack. In addition, it's written that Nehru viewed a possible border war with India as a reckless and futile endeavour and was opposed to it so claims that India was the aggressor and China acted in self-defence are not particularly accurate. Now I'm aware that the CIA has an agenda too (not really the find of the century here) but if we are taking Maxwell's analysis into account, it wouldn't hurt to hear the CIA's perspective on the matter.

Here are the links to some of the declassified CIA documents  : [2][3][4][5] Vedant (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

!!So what are you saying? Did Nehru allow CIA to operate on Indian soil against China or not?WikiCC (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the sources I posted? Where does it say Nehru allowed the CIA to conduct operations in India? Vedant (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Casualty Numbers

The casualty numbers have been frequently modified. There are a few reliable sources referencing the numbers. I hope we can have a consensus on this, and in the future there should not be any modification, unless people put up with new evidence.

- Calvin: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm

India's casualties for the Border War were finally reported as follows:

Killed 1,383
Captured 3,968
Missing 1,696

India released no figures for Wounded, but casualties were high.
China released no casualty figures.

- US Army Strategics Studies Institute http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB52.pdf, p343

According to PLA records from archives, Indian casualties during the war were 4,897 killed or wounded and 3,968 captured. 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. In comparison, PLA casualties in the war were quite small, with 722 Chinese soldiers killed and 1,697 wounded. In addition, no soldier of the PLA was captured during the war, a rarity in the history of warfare.

The recent modification by user Smukhuti was pointing to a translation company and that is obviously not a reliable source.

If there is no objection, I will change the casualty numbers according to the SSI's. --Xingdong (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the 2 POW that were kept for 40 yrs in an Indian mental institution should be mentioned.WikiCC (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no such 2 POWs. They might be civilians kidnapped by Indian army. The reports by Indian media turned out to be nonsense. Xingdong (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Right... And the Chinese respected the dead Indian soldiers... another piece of nonsense right there [6] Vedant (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong though, after all the PLA are experts in dealing with civilians [7] [8]. Doesn't seem like the PLA needs any help from the Indians on how to treat civilians. :) Vedant (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Vedant, I could go on and on and dig some stuff for you, but I wouldn't do that. Didn't you see opportunities out there when last week both China and India officially joined the G20? Xingdong (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that India made certain mistakes in 1962 that caused China to respond the way it did but attempting to pin all the blame on India (which I get the distinct impression this article is trying to do) is wrong. Then bringing up some ludacris and unsupported claim like India holding civilians for 4 decades forces me to raise questions about the neutrality of the users editing this article. As for the current state of Sino-Indian relations, I'd rather not speculate but considering the number of border violations and the Chinese co-operation with Pakistan I'm not particularly optimistic (though I don't believe current relations have much bearing on this article). Vedant (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Vedant, look at this: http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/27878/ . Neither Indian army nor India external affairs ministry had any clue who are them. It does sound that India held civilians for 4 decades. If that is not kidnapping, then what is that? Xingdong (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed casualty numbers in "info box" and "Casualties" under "Ceasefire" section. However, I kept the Killed number for India in "info box" unchanged since the source is not verifiable. And the sources above have only "Killed" and "Missing in action". No total number is available. If anyone has any source please provide. Thanks. Xingdong (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You cant have it both ways Xingdong, you cant claim that the Indian media reports were nonsense but use them to prove that two of your countrymen were supposedly being held in India. Vedant (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have no objection to you using the source for accurate casualty numbers. If it is okay with everyone, I'm going to change the Indian casualty figures to 1,383 Indian soldiers killed, 1,696 missing in action, 3,968 soldiers captured and 1,047 soldiers wounded. Looking through the source, there is no actual mention of the 3,128 figure though 1,383 + 1,696 = 3,097 (KIA + MIA). Vedant (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

US Air Force involvement

Please forgive an intrusion by someone new to the Wiki process but I was part of the USAF involvement. The article says "The United States Air Force flew in supplies to India in November 1962." We did a little more than that.

I was an Air Operations Specialist stationed at Evreux-Fauville AB in France and part of the Mobility Alert Team that was activated one morning towards the end of of the mid-shift I was working in late November (my recollection is Thanksgiving Day, November 22, 1962). An entire squadron of C-130A aircraft (memory says 12 aircraft) and support personnel from my base was sent to New Delhi later that afternoon. Total flight time was about 18.5 hours. We refueled in Athens and crew-rested in Teheran, so we would have arrived at Palam Airdrome in New Delhi about 35 hours after we left France. We were quartered in teh Ashoka Hotel for a few days, then moved to the Hotel Janpath, and eventually to the Indian Government Guest House.

Anyway, enough of the background. We began operations the next day out a hangar on the military side of Palam, flying sorties at ten minute departure intervals. The primary destination was Leh but we also flew to other areas in Jammu & Kashmir as well as Tezpur and Bagdogra, carrying troops, ammunition, and supplies up and evacuating wounded on return. During the three months I was stationed in India, I handled the flights plans, filing them with air operations on the civilian side of Palam, drafted mission reports, and served as customs official for arriving and departing U.S. military personnel. While I was there, the C-130 aircraft and crews were periodically rotated with other squadrons from our base in France. This rotation continued after I left, into the summer. I do not know whether the workload slowed, then, but I worked 17 hours a day, seven days a week, being present 1.5 hours before the first mission left in a day and remaining until the last one returned. I had a day and a half off while I was there. Aircrews were flying two and sometimes three missions per day.

While I do not know the political and military ramifications of all this, we were told that the Indian Air Force was not well-equipped to handle airlifts into the Himalayas: they had a C-119 with a ramjet on top its fuselage that could get up to Leh and a handful of AN-12s that were frequently out of commission (I only saw one of the latter the entire time I was in New Delhi). Whatever iit was, the U.S. Air Force had a presence in India in 1962 and 1963 that was more than just "[flying] in supplies to India in November 1962."Sgt Toot (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sgt Toot, thanks for your first hand information about the U.S. Air Force engagement in this war. Xingdong (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So there was the "tacit" alliance, and "being cool" to the Americans!!WikiCC (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please Read Guideline above "No original research" and "No unverifiable claims".

Also,assuming the supposed "sgt.Toot" was at Indo china war at young age of 30 years that will make him 78 years old.Now how many 78 year old people use internet let alone edit wikipedia articles? I have seen countless imposters in wikipedia(claiming to be Paris hilton,Miley Cyrus and even Barrack Obama!!) but this one is the worst imposter. Seriously if I create a account with name Sgt.Knox and write whatever I want to would that verify my point?Certainly NOT.

Also,Sgt Toot (lol) you said "I only saw one of the latter the entire time I was in New Delhi".Supposing you are real would it be OK if I go to certain Iraqi or Afghani city and if I see 1 plane and 2 tanks can I say that america has only 1 plane and 2 tanks.

Sgt.LinTse (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is very little documentation on the activities of the 40th Airlift Squadron (The C-130 squadron that supposedly participated in USAF operations in India) with regards to the 1962 Sino-Indian war. Infact the only credible source I could find (Global Security) doesn't even talk about the 1962 war though it does indicate that the aforementioned squadron participated in earthquake relief efforts to various countries including India (see [9]). The remainder of the articles (including the Wikipedia article) are just copies of each other and they don't cite any sources. Thus, I'm forced to conclude that the veracity of Sgt Toot's claims are dubious at best based on available evidence. That is unless someone can provide evidence from an encyclopedic source or government documents. Vedant (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is little documentation on these activities -- maybe it is still classified by Indian government? much like the Henderson-Brooks Report? However, this does not prove that the activities "did not" happen.

Sgt Toot is just narative of his personal experiences which are relevent to this war. To say otherwise, you need proof to counter his claims :) Xingdong (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello friends I am Sgt.LinTse of chinese military (retd.).I was part of attacking force in 1962 and was at several crucial battles.When war began we weren't supprised in least since we were building roads for several months and had been fortifying for quite some time.We were told to proceed as far as we can without Indians firing at us.So we proceeded in their country and guess what they didn't open fire on us.Yes this was really stupid of them they thought of us as brothers "Hindi chini bhai bhai" trusting fools.So what if we lost goodwill and honor we got desertland of zero productive value as prize. Battle was very ferocious but since we had 40000 men and they had only 3634 we were assured we will win.Soon,we opened fire and wiped hundereds of them out.Ofcourse we lost a few thousand soldiers but hey war is war.At the end of war we had lost 4934 men but since Indians thought that an war with China will cost hundreds of millions their lives they agreed when we oferred ceasefire.Again they are foolish they actually value human life and morals. So thats how we claimed desertland Half century ago. Note:As Xingdong has said above everything I said is correct unless you prove that I wasnt at war. Sgt.LinTse (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if it were classified by the Indian government, the United States government could still release all the available information on the matter if they desired. Has the PRC published all the reports on the "incidents" at Tiananmen Square or Tank Man's fate or the actual number of people killed during Mao's rise to power and the Cultural Revolution? Also, If I may add, any attempt to include these claims into the article would be against the rules of Wikipedia which expressly forbids original research. That is unless you can substantiate Sgt. Toot's claims with actual evidence? :) Vedant (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum, may I suggest to anyone editing this article that the inclusion of non-English sources is a contentious issue at best seeing as how it is an English Wikipedia, all citations should be in English so they can be verified independently. Vedant (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Vedant, under the info box, there is clear marking indicating that this article contains Hindi and Chinese text. Xingdong (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd!

Sgt. Toot just offered some personal experience which, while interesting, was just low level inconsequential details related to this topic. In all likelihood they won’t make it to the main Wiki entry. Now he is presumed to be a liar and has to prove in encyclopedic proportion to be otherwise! And anything not written in English can not be accepted as truth!!!! The Brits must be mighty proud for bearing their burden so well!

The problem with this Wiki entry is that so many people want to discredit Neville Maxwell and give more credit to the Indian army here. Not that I agree with their reason but I do understand their sentiment. But this is the wrong way to do it! India bans the Maxwell book but I would not be surprised that there are stacks of it in the Ministry of Foreign Affaires and every concerned official has to read it three times. Would they read the Wiki entry? Probably would not dare to do so during office hours. Both Calvin and Gavner, two major Western academic reference sources (Calvin even has a government background) for this Wiki entry, are just extensions to the Maxwell study. In fact I have not seen any western academic study that takes a contrary view to Maxwell’s after his book came out. There is a lesser known work “In Fear of China” by Gregory Clark. I have not read his book but he has a website and other writings on the web. He seems to have taken a different tack but arriving at the same conclusion.

So what is the use of arguing that China did this and India did not do that in Wiki? Look at the big picture. What China did was settling all border issues, except with India, with its 13 or 14 continental neighbours by negotiations, with mutual respect. That is including Russia and Vietnam in 2009, and Nepal and Myanmar before India’s China war. What India did not do was settling it’s border with three of it’s five continental neighbours, gone to war with two, and the third one, if I remember correctly, refuses to negotiate with India unless China also is invited!

Think about that! WikiCC (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Striked~!

Hello WIKICC.First of all where did you learned history?I mean seriously,if you don't know a thing about history of India and China then stop wasting our time.

You said above China never had dispute with neighbors and you give example of Vietnam and Russia.

First of all China entered into war with Vietnam and Also with Russia(who presented China with a humiliating defeat).AND they bully Tibetans who as EVERYONE IN WORLD knows don't want to join China even if they have to die. I am making a sincere request PLEASE stop acting as "I know it all" when you don't know about even large battles let alone skirmishes. Shishir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.65.157 (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Second time this happened and you have been warned before, anymore personal attack from you will result in you getting BAN~! --Dave1185 (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• That's it~! I'm taking you to ANI now~! --Dave1185 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sino-Indian War

There seems to be considerable gaps in the information as provided in the current text of this topic. The issue is also bound up in the history of Tibet and China ( not only of India)since about the middle of the 19th century upto about the time the British left India in 1947 and the Communist Revolution in China in 1949. Hence there appear contradictions between this text and the Wikipedia texts on China-Tibet relations and the history of Tibet. Besides the citation of the references in Neville Maxwell's book, reference may also be made to two excellent books,"Himalyan Frontiers" by Dorothy Woodman (1969) and "British India and Tibet 1766-1910" by Alastair Lamb (1960, revised and reprinted 1986)which provide information from old Biritsh Foreign office archives. The Report of the Officials of the Foreign Ministries of India and China published in 1961 of the rounds of deliberations between the two sides in 1959 is also highly instructive. If these are taken into account, consierable re-writing of the present text would be called for.

Prosenjit Das Gupta, Calcutta, 10th october 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.36.169 (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not say that it is "bound up in the history of Tibet and China", rather it is "bound up in Britain's imperial colonial ambition towards China (not just Tibet but also the rest of China too - as in Shanghai and Hong Kong), and Nehru's adoption, at least to some extent in Tibet, of this ambition.WikiCC (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.. if Tibet is an integral part of China, so is Arunachal Pradesh an integral part of India. Any issues? You can't actually count the fruits and have them too! Shovon (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Spot on Shovon76.But I think Tibet and Arunachal Pradesh have received wildly different treatments by their respective governments.On one hand in Arunanchal pradesh democratic elections are being held (with a very high rate of 70% people appearing to vote) on the other hand Tibet has been subjected to discrimination and aggression according to human rights associations such Amnesty Int.[6 year old boy and 50 missing] It has been claimed that Tibet was never a country by some but as early as 821 ce a peace treaty between Tibet & China was signed this treaty including details of the borders between the two countries are inscribed on a stone pillar which stands outside the Jokhang temple in Lhasa[[10]], in fact it was ruled through 1640-1950 by Dalai Lamas[[11]] For a list of treaties between China and Tibet see this [[12]] link(It also contains a proclamation in which Dalai lama clearly declares it as a independent country).Also China does not allow independent human rights organizations into Tibet, and foreign delegations invited to Tibet are denied independent access to meet with Tibetans[[13]].The Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy claims that more than 11,000 monks and nuns have been expelled from Tibet since 1996 for opposing "patriotic re-education" sessions conducted at monasteries and nunneries under the "Strike Hard" campaign.[[14]] Kampfgruppe.lehr (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Backgound - MacMahon Line

As Britain apologised last year, I don’t think anyone can argue that Britain did something bad in the Simla Conference, but it did not say what it did, and it is very difficult to determine. According to one Chinese source, the draft that was initialed by all three parties did not include the bi-partite agreement between the Chinese Tibet Automomous Region (TAR) and Britain, but the British inserted the bi-partite agreement into the initialed tri-partite agreement afterward. According to Maxwell, the 1929 edition of the Aitchison’s Treaties said there was no boundary agreed upon in the Conference, later Britain recalled that edition, destroyed it, rewrote it, and reprinted it in 1937, passing it off as the 1929 edition. Luckily, one copy of the original 1927 edition survived.

Also according to Maxwell, the agreement between TAR and Britain was provisional upon Britain succeeding in pressuring China to change the Chinese provincial boundaries, to put the Tibetan inhabited areas in the surrounding provinces into Tibet. Since Britain could not deliver, the TAR later refuted the agreement.

“However, the McMahon Line lay south of the boundary India claims.[17] India's government held the view that the Himalayas were the ancient boundaries of the Indian subcontinent,” “geographic” is a better word than “ancient”.

The whole paragraph regarding V.K. Singh should be deleted.WikiCC (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A statement issued by Britain last year doesn't change anything that happened in 1914. "Tibet Autonomous Region" wasn't created until 1965. The Simla Convention gives the name of the country simply as "Tibet." That Britain took its time to ratify the treaty doesn't change its legal status. Kauffner (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does not change the fact that someone lied and cheated in 1914.WikiCC (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner, I disagreed with you on this in many occassions - that you claim Tibet was a independent country when the Simla Convention was convened and the convention or treaty Britain signed with Tibet was a valid treaty, therefore the McMahon Line et al were legal.

From any international law perspective, these were not true. The self-proclaimed Tibet independence was not recognized by any country in the world, and of course China did not recognized that. And naturally in 1951 China re-asserted the control of its terroritory. The 17 point agreement between Tibet and China explained the situation -- the agreement was simply about peacefully "liberating" Tibet while maintaining its autonomy. The agreement was much like many other agreements signed in many other Chinese cities (for example, Peiking was peacefully "liberated" under similar agreements, not by force). Thus any treaty or convention Tibet signed with other party was not valid. China did not, and will not recognized it.

On the other hand, if you look at British Indian maps over the time, you will see at first its territory didn't reach Aksai Chin or NEFA area. They drawed a line as further as possible to create themselves a safety "buffer zone". Even the British India admited that their jurisdiction had never reached Aksai Chin. As for NEFA, many areas were traditional Tibetan habitat(e.g. Tawang was birthplace of the 6th Dalai Lama, in case you don't know).

Illegal things(Simla and McMahon Line) are always illegal. India's territory claims are based on bunch of sand. British official statement made last year by David Miliband only further clarified people's mind.

Having said that, as it happened the Chinese are willing to settle the border disputes. What they want is just a fair settlement. If India still insists on its stance, there will never be a settlement. Xingdong (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Agreement? The 17 point agreement signed between PRC and the thus called 'local govt of TIbet was signed by representatives of Tibet, who were not even authorised to sign any Agreement on the behalf of Tibetan Govt; using counterfeit seals. Dalai Lama was away close to Indian Border in case he might have to go into exile if China attacks. when he returned to Lhasa, he was told that they (his representatives) were forced to sign the agreement. what credibility such a document beers? (Dalai lama mentions in his Biography, Freedom in Exile)Samitus mallicus 11:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell us why they wanted to unauthorizedly sign the agreement and used a counterfeit seals? Do you know that Dalai Lama happily went to Beijing after that?? Xingdong (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sino-Indian War

Pidiji (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)There seems to be a pre-occupation in the discussions with "British imperial colonial policy" towards China and Tibet as the basis for the Sino-Indian War, to the exclusion of any serious consideration of Chima imperial designs under the Manchu dynasty. After all Sinkiang, Mongolia, Manchuria, and Tibet were not parts of China as it then existed in the valleys of the Huang Ho and the Yangtze rivers since time immemorial. It was only under the K'ang Hsi Emperor of the Manchus that Tibet was conquered in 1720, Lhasa was occupied and a garrison of Chinese soldiers posted there. With the subsequent decline of Manchu power, Tibet re-asserted its sense of independence, and for all practical purposes, Tibet governed itself under the Dalai lama since about 1860. Finally,under the 13th Dalai Lama Tibet actually did declare its independence in 1912. It needs therefore to be recognised that the Sino-Indian War of 1962 (more a Chinese act of aggression as neither China nor India declared "war")was the result of several currents of history: of India under British rule, China under the Manchus and later under the Communists, of Tibet and even of Imperial Russia. A study of these histories would lead to a better understanding of the issues.Pidiji (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

China is not situated on an isolated subcontinent, it interacts with many neighbours. At any one point in history, events in one area of course are influenced by events in other areas, past and current. The British action in Tibet no doubt was influenced by the competition with Russia, whose success of inner and outer Mongolia it tried to copy. However, the most immediate cause of India’s China war must be Nehru’s adoption of the Britain’s policy towards Tibet (see Maxwell). It was India’s basis for claiming the mythical and illegal McMahon Line, and taking advantage of the Cold War, the eventual use of the Forward Policy.

With this Forward Policy, Indian troops pushed even beyond India’s claimed boundary. If this is not aggression then I don’t know what you call it. This direct military challenge by itself justifies a military response from China, but the intensity of the response probably was influenced by the Chinese “perception” of Nehru’s intention with Tibet.

Britain recognized Tibet as part of China when it formulated inner and outer Tibet. This is evident in their instruction to McMahon not to bypass China in the Simla conference, and made abundantly clear by it’s mea culpa in 2008. India recognized Tibet as part of China in an act of the Indian parliament in the early 1950s. Indians having a problem with that should really argue with Britain, or bring it up with their members of Parliament.

Tibet is a part of China and therefore any problem between TAR and the central government is China’s internal politics. International convention does not allow other countries to get involved with internal politics of other countries. Britain with their might did that in early 1900s by agitating Tibetans to seek independency from China. Nehru, well, with his illusion of grandeur, also tried to influence events in Tibet. Gavner, Clark, and Maxwell all touched upon that. His allowing CIA to carry out covert operation against China on Indian soil was a hostile act, and he signed the “Panscheel”! At least Britain has admitted fault now, I have yet to see India inherited this moral courage.

Pidiji’s comment about needing to study all the forces involved in creating the situation, I agree, Maxwell already did. The problem is that many people refuse to accept his study, they just say that he is biased, yet none shows how. Pidiji’s question about when Tibet becomes part of China is of no direct relation to India’s China war, because both Britain and India recognized Tibet as part of China when the event unfolds. His version of history also does not agree with Wiki entry on Tibet (English). He should discuss it there and not here.WikiCC (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Did that stop Xingdong from changing "China invaded" to "China entered" Tibet even though all the Wiki sources seem to prefer invasion and countless sources can be produced that China invaded Tibet? Also, I have posted how Maxwell is biased and he is well known for his "predictions" about India. Vedant (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Vedant, see my reply in the China "entered" Tibet but India "annexed" goa section. If you don't have any question, then your edit will need to be reverted. Xingdong (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

See my reply. 13:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs)

Sino-Indian War

Prior to the Manchu or the Qing Imperial dynasty in China, Tibet had been conquered by the Mongols shortly after they invaded China in the 13th/14th centuries. It was not a continuous occupation or administration and much or all of it lapsed thereafter till the Manchu invasion in 1720. In fact both the Mongols and the Manchus themselves came under the strong influence of Tibetan Buddhism. Once again after the decline of the Manchu imperial authority by the mid 19th century Tibet asserted its independence, and this position continued till about 1950. Three further points are of note - (1) that the Government of China in 1913 did know and accept that Tibet will send a Plenipotentiary as an equal to the Simla Conference, and (2) the Constitution of the Peoples' Republic of China in Articles 112-122 has provided for "Autonomous Regions" and their right to have the administrative head from the major ethnic group of the region and to the independence of their economic planning, finance, art, science, culture (this was also incorporated in a separate agreement between the Tibetan auhtorities and the Chinese Government) and (3) that on 30th April 1960, Premier Chou-En-lai stated in New Delhi that (as per the Hsinhua News Agency) "pending a setllement of the Sino-Indian boundary question, we are willing to maintain the present state and will not cross this line (the Macmahon Line - parentheses mine). Unfortunately subsequent events have proved otherwise. Pidiji (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Pidiji, you forgot after Yuan dynasty(Mongols) there was Ming dynasty. Tibet was under effective Chinese administration during Ming.

For the Simla there are tons of documents detailing that but I don't mind retelling that. Basically that was a British scheme to seduce China to allow an outter Tibet. The convention produced no results of Chinese agreement. Chinese recognized the distinct Tibetan ethnic and set up Autonomous region, but it was still part of China.

In regards to the McMahon Line, everybody knows China's position, that it is plainly illegal. However China was willing to settle it down peacefully with India. If without India's provocation, there wouldn't have been this war and China might have already settled it with India. Xingdong (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Xingdong whats the matter, I thought you would respond to my counter-argument. Does this mean you have nothing to say. Perhaps you ignored one fact: the majority of sources do not agree with you or Maxwell so my edit stays. If you have any claims then perhaps you should remove the 12 claims on the Invasion of Tibet Wikipedia article but I think that falls under rogue editing so unless you want to receive another block from the admins, I'd be careful. :) Vedant (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Cuban missile crisis

Although the fact that the crisis and war coincided (roughly) in time may be true, I don't think it is relevant without some argument backed up by a citation. I suggest deleting it from the intro. If it is relevant, it should probably go in the section causes of war supported with appropriate citation.Vontrotta (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the excuses some people made in order to comfort themselves. Instead of openly accepting the defeat, like what Nazi Germany and Japan did in the WWII, those people posed as innocent and made excuses for them to exit. Most common excuses are like following, but none of them is true.

1. The border war was coincided with Cuban missile crisis. When the crisis was over, China saw no advantage for them to fight with India, so they declared ceasefire.

2. Another popular Indian explanation that the Chinese stop was "basically inspired by fear" because their lines of communication were overstretched and they became vulnerable to Indian counterattack.

3. Some said Chinese didn't advance further because of their logistics problem.

Xingdong (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Germany & Japan signed a Treaty of Surrender - India did no such thing although only a fool would think that it did not get a military black eye. Also - neither of the sides formally declared war; by no stretch of imagination was this instance comparable to anything in WW2 - firstly, there were no civilian casualties and secondly the sheer scale of a full fledged war wasn't there. Perhaps neither side had the resources to mount a long and costly war. China had a point to prove and it did so. Moreover, it won diplomatic brownie points as well. But all said and then - Kennedy was decidedly pro-India and Nixon had not bear hugged Mao either. Read this

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/world/asia/25iht-india.html

China would have factored this in. TheBlueKnight (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article. Nice to hear from McNamara, known as architect of the Vienam war who just passed away recently. However, if China would factor this in, they might already have done that in Korean war. Didn't Eisenhower threaten China before? Western's strategy is to have you guys fighting each other, typical of "divide and conquer" thingy. Hope China and India wouldn't fall for it again. Xingdong (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they will ever go to war - both are concentrating on economic progress - at the end of the day the per capita income of both nations is significantly low. Wars are costly affairs. Either way - the disputes revolve around areas which are not resource rich. It's not as if there are oil wells to be dug in Tawang. It is a matter of prestige - it is my personal opinion that all countries to should hold on to whatever they have and sign agreements to that effect. As the world's two most populous nations - perhaps they can create an Asio zone like the Euro zone where borders become irrelevant. I don't think either civilization is very aggressive by nature - 4000 years of peaceful co-existence should not be tarred by a skirmish of a few months. Of course, with the Pakistanis - it is a completely different story. If India trans-located their entire nation on the moon - the Pakistanis would follow it there and try picking a fight :) TheBlueKnight (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Brittain made that apology because, after 96 years, they had a stroke of reflection upon their conciences?WikiCC (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Some backgrouds. 1. Mao was a mad man and a megalomaniac. He actually prepared (to what he could) China for nuclear wars against US and Russia by moving the strategic industries to the hinterland, and built extensive underground shelters in the big cities. 2. Mad he was, but I don't think he ever had India in his sight. He just wanted the "big" boys US and Russia. One of the books claimed that Russia actually had planned to assasinate him. 3. In the post Mao era, in one of the exchanages between the Chinese and the US militaries, a Chinese general asked the US side why China should think that US would use nuclear weapon against China now? Since US did not use it in the Korean war, and did not use it in the Amoy war (with Taiwan) ? WikiCC (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

India enjoyed great popularity among the international Great Powers as well as newly independent countries back then (and even now). It is the only country that can receive aid from both the USA and USSR. China was, on the contrary, a 'bad boy' to most of the nations in the world, just like north Korea nowadays. To void external intervene was critical to her, as fighting against both super-powers was doomed. The Cuban missile crisis provided a perfect chance. The American had to focus on their own security and Russia (since 1959, the Russians had openly supported India for any sino-indian dispute) needed Support from the Chinese Government . None of them was able to provide substantial military aid in time. Timing is critical. I believe the preparation had been carried on for a long time given the poor traffic condition around that area. But the time window was opened indeed by the Cuban missile crisis. the US would no doubt support India, and just a few months before that the Russian still referred China as the aggressor and invade towards India. However once the crisis started, Russia regarded China's action as 'necessary self-defense'. Together with the US focusing on the Caribbean, this marked a GO signal for the Chinese Assault. as soon as the crisis was settled, The Russian called China again the Invader and war mongers and warned China a possible attack on the northern border. At the same time, military aid from the western also arrived. continue attacking could only invite disastrous war against both super powers and hatred among the rest of the world. It would be unwise to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.243.1 (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It is always unwise not to explore all avenues to peace, and unwise not to stop war ASAP!!

It is also unwise to view any gesture of good will only with cynicism!

WikiCC (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It is also unwise to base your opinion on a article which is so obviously warped. Shishir

People have forgotten the most essential issue in this war, that was India's encroachment into China's territories. Having a shabby army, yet a bullooned ambition, India had a "forward policy" to slowly advance into China's lands in an attempt to drive the Chinese out of their imaginary borders, even though Indians knew the lands were never theirs. They thought their military was stronger than China's (much like what happens today) and Chinese would be running away for just a few round shots. The consequence was obvious.

Had Nehru known the consequence of military provocation to China, he would had wisely stopped it. But people like to gamble. Had Hitler known he would lose in WW2, he wouldn't have invaded East Europe and Russia. Simple as that.

There got to be reasons why China holds one of the 5 permenent seats in UN Security Council and India obviously can't comprehend that.

The Cuba Crisis had never been in Chinese's mind. You don't have to wait for any other opportunities to save your lands. Xingdong (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

@Xingdong You are obviously biased toward Chinese.Wikipedia discussion is not for anyones childish outburst.Please be moderate and act decently.Also,you shouldn't compare Nehru with Hitler.One was peace loving leader who avoided a war which could have killed millions on both sides while the other was the man who massacred Jews,Russians and other innocents in millions.Posts like this will get you banned in no time. Swift&silent (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That fantastic theory of "don't have to wait for any other opportunities to save your lands" explains why China has taken over Taiwan...lol..TheBlueKnight (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well in life you have to gamble sometimes, but what astounds me, and disturbs me, was what Nehru wanted to gamble on. He knew that South Tibet was a “scar” inflicted by the British Imperial colonists on China, but he felt he was entitled to it because he could “better” the Chinese. This was India after 200 years of humiliating colonial rule and decades of struggle for independence! Yet not only he had no sympathy for the plight of a fellow victim, but actually turned on it with the adopted imperialistic attitude of his former colonial master!WikiCC (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Xingdong why you write provoking comments like "India cant comprehend that" what India truly cant comprehend (beacuse India is worlds largest democracy where people are FREE to act,to think,to speak and to protest if need arises) is this [15] and this [16].I can list hundered of pages full of chinese govt. attrocities and public suppression.And ALL of them are verifiable (none of your biased chinese daily stuff). There is a saying in India which roughly translates to "Those who live in glass house shouldnt hurl stone at other people's house". Sgt.LinTse (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that India is 100% greater than China, but here we are not comparing India with China, just talking about India's China War!

If India is truly free, it would inform it's citizens so that they can think and speak freely informed. This means that India should lift the ban on Alastair Lamb's book, Neville Maxwell's book, and the Henderson Brook's report! Instead it's officials are publicly yapping about China being "India's greatest security problem", I presume that means it is ahead of Pakistan!

Both India and China control the public opinion in this case. In China it appears to me that it does not want to foster a public anti-India sentiment. Why does India ban the books? to keep up an anti-China sentiment? This inspite of a series of signed agreements for peaceful coexistence starting from the Panscheel?

China arrived in India before all those western colonial powers, when it was strong, but it did not stick out a Goa or a Pondicherry or an East India Company, they left behind something that is still being used today! Go to Kerala to take a look at the fishing nets! Think about that!

I am not an expert in India's China War, much less an expert in india, but I bet I know a lot more about India then most of the Indians who opine here know about China, some of whom I even doublt if they have finished reading the main Wiki entry. So if mud slinging is what we try to do here, I would have enough ammunition, but I will not join in!WikiCC (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please first get your facts straight.There is NO COUNTRY in this world who hasn't banned some books,people,practices e.t.c. What I am criticizing is that Chinese govt. control over citizens. It is perfectly OK if they had banned a book or two and a few sites who were anti-national BUT they have ENTIRE Internet firewalled so they can restrict info that may cause uproar among civilians they conceal truth about themselves.They banned BBC and thousands of other sites (Just google it) as a matter of fact they had WIKIPEDIA BANNED NOT LONG AGO! Also,In indian you can go right to president office and protest if you like.While Chinese slaughtered (using TANKS!!!!) their own youth who were UNARMED and holding a peaceful protest.Sgt.LinTse (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice try Shishir(a.k.a Sgt.LinTse). Actually you don't have to inpersonate a Chinese to post comments here :) Xingdong (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all right word is IMPERSONATE.Second There is no Impersonation here.When I created a ID with name Sgt.LinTse I just wanted to show that there is a logic and reason behind WIKIPEDIA'S ban on unverifiable and personal "research".So I signed with my name to remove any confusion as to identity.It is being fair NOT impersonation.Also why don't you even for a second question Sgt.Toot???If Sgt.Toot was fair he would have given his name but he didn't. Also my questions which I raised above still stands.Please don't try to deviate the subject of this little discussion i.e. infringement of human rights.

Sgt.LinTse (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to deviate the subject of this little discussion "sino indian war". You can go to wiki entries "China" or "human rights" to vent your frustration. To do it here only gives the impression that you are trying to hide behind another issue. Also you can't blame others for being suspicious if you use a Chinese sounding name, with your opinion.WikiCC (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I too accept that focus should be on main article but I must say that I am confused why you think only my comments are deviating from subject even when THEY ARE REPLY to comments posted above by Xingdong (e.g. he said India can't comprehend that talking about current U.N. seats in a history article.But when I replied to him you thought I am deviating from article!Yeah right!!Cant you see his posts e.g. where he compares Nehru with Hitler!But you wont even ask him for References but when I post proper posts with proper proofs you think I am deviating!I ask why dont you ask him why he posted above mentioned posts? Waiting for you reply Sgt.LinTse (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not, and can not be, the policeman of Wikipedia. Generally I just state my point of view, I don’t respond to all replies or all other comments, especially if I feel that they are way out of line, irrational, or that I have no more to add to what I have stated. I said that we should not compare countries here, but some people keep bringing that up. I was not going to say it again were it not for this sgt. Lin Tze business. And I did not expect anyone to jump in to take my side either, although that did happen once ( an Indian). My original comment about not comparing countries was specifically related to your comment, my second comment was related to your Lin Tze and I thought it was interesting that you reminded others not to deviate from a deviated subject. I think if you expect others to gang up with you when you disagree with another viewpoint you will be disappointed. (By the way, you said you were not trying to impersonate, and that is good enough for me, I don’t need proof in encyclopedic detail.)

Xindong did not compare Nehru to Hitler, he just said they both gambled and lost! I do not know Xindong, don’t even know where he hails from but, without regard to the viewpoint, I do find him to have researched this topic a lot better than most people, both historically and documentationally, better than I have at least. He might have carried away at times but you should see the abuse he was subjected to! I did not jump into his defense, neither did you. WikiCC (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So it means when Xingdung started talking about current U.N. seats in a article about half-century old war he was not deviating but when I replied to him I am deviating. GREAT!

Sgt.LinTse (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Note:It seems writing my name clearly wasn't enough so to resolve confusion I am signing all my previous posts with my ID. Sgt.LinTse (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice try Shishir, oops, the history [17] still shows that you changed all "Shishir" with "Sgt.LinTse" :-) Xingdong (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice try Wikicc, oops,,Xingdong Why you keep pointlessly attacking me? Please read my posts above before posting.I have clearly stated my name And I have enlarged it And I have it bold/italic so it can be easily seen AND I left a note to notify my signing of comments.But of course you havent seen any of that have you? Also, ofcourse Wiki users shall see user talk pages to see who has been blocked by Admin talk of wikipedia for making biased comments.

Sgt.LinTse (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sino-Indian War

While Neville Maxwell is but one authority on the subject (by virtue of having been Special Correspondent for "The Times" in New Delhi), there are many other recognised authorities such Dr. Alstair Lamb of Cambridge University, Dr. Dorothy Woodman, Dr. P.E. Ebrey (who has edited the Cambridge Ilustrated History of China - primarily about the history of China and not about the conflict). Woodman in fact has an important document as appendix to her book, the facsimile copy of the Simla Agreement of 1914 with the initials of the Indian, Chinese and Tibetan Plenipotentiaries (to authenticate the document) as well as a fairly detailed write-up on the deliberations at the Simla Conference. It would be wrong to disregard such documentation. Also reference may be made to the Report of the International Comission of Jurists, Geneva, in 1960 about the genocide in Tibet. It is certainly useful in any discussion to read up more than read less.Pidiji (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Maxwell and Calvin(and many others) have detailed the Simla Convention (1913-1914) in their books. Basically it was a British scheme in an attempt to seduce China to allow an independent Tibet. The McMahon Line was a product of secret negotiation btw British and Tibetans. The map with a rough draw of outter Tibet was not shown to Chinese at the time and was attached to the convention later on. The Tibetans gave in to British in the hope that they would help them to reach their independence goal, but at the end China didn't ratify the convention so Tibet lost trust with Britain and they even renounced the convention themselves.

Initialing the convention document doesn't mean anything. It could simply mean "This is a good copy and everything is readable". A treaty needs to be ratified by governments however the Simla Convention has no such thing from Chinese or British.

India does not have any legitimacy in its territory claims on South Tibet. If India still thinks Simla is valid thing it can depend on, it will find its hope is based on a bunch of sand. Xingdong (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not read the Woodman book and the Lamb book, because they are not available to me. However Maxwell was a colleague of them and has made use of the information from their books. Maxwell was not only a news correspondent in India, he went back to university as a research fellow to research the subject in order to write his “India’s China War”. For my assessment of the impact of his book please see my previous comments (Sept 29) under “US Air Force Involvement”. For the problem with the Simla conference please see my previous comment under “Background – McMahon Line”. The issue of Tibet independency in here is just a smoke screen. India was, and is, trying to grab South Tibet for itself, not for a future “Greater Tibet”. Therefore the discussion has to be based on the formal relationship between India and China. To me bringing this issue into discussion is evidence of a lack of confidence, fleeing for cover under another subject. And Mongolia and Sinkiang too? Then what about the Aryans coming down from Central Asia to push the Dravidians around? Or the Moghals’ imprint on the Indian psyche? Or even the Anglo Saxon kicking out the Celts? WikiCC (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

All major sources who are globally respected have accepted that Tibet was infact invaded by chinese. There is no controversy (accept in this talk page it seems) about the chinese invasion of Tibet (invasion is an hostile action BTW). Well here the sources: Peaceful liberation by Chinese Military LOL [Invasion of Tibet:Wikipedia] , [Tibet.com] [Globalsecurity] Globalsecurity.com clerly states that Tibet has maintained throughout its history a national identity distinct from that of China and that it was invaded by chinese armed forces. If there is still confusion please simply ask I will post name of books on this matter,Internet sites(for those who are clumsy :) ) and photos of invasion(a picture is worth a thousand words).

Important:Chinese "Peaceful" invasion of Tibet involved a war in which there were 8500 Tibetan and 40000 Chinese soldiers and there were 5000 Tibetan and 10,000 chinese casualties.[Chinese invasion of tibet] I am always open for corrections,

Cheers,

Swift&silent (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think certain people are just angry that 12 sources disagree with Maxwell but those individuals can't do much about other than tell me that I should delete my edit because I'm wrong while not providing an actual reason. Oh well... You know how it is with nationalists :( Vedant (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

sino-indian war

Use of pejorative words or phrases and a polemical stance does not help any discussion. It is quite clear that many of the correspondents have not read the references mentioned but are proceeding from previously held positions. Neville Maxwell did proceed to do research at the SOAS but his basic calling was that of a press correspondent. If it is held that the Indians were following through on a British colonial policy that led to the Sin-Indian conflict then it is equally and historically true that Tibet was acquired by the force of arms of the Manchu imperial forces. And Manchus were by no means Chinese - meaning primarily the Han Chinese of the Yellow River-Yangtze basins. They came from north of the Korean peninsula (north of Heilungjiang and Jilin)and they suppressed the Han Chinese in many ways including compelling them to tonsure the fore part of the head and to wear "queues" (pigtails)and impose summary punishment for minor infringements. It is strange - but understandable - that later Chinese should attempt to co-opt the Manchus as a minority section of the main-stream Chinese and thus assume their conquests as their own. The ebb and flow of history, whether of Britain, or of India, or of China or Russia - at least in this case - is something that needs to be appreciated and allowed for. As it is sometimes said "Those who ignore history are apt to repeat the mistakes". Whether British driving out the Celts (as some have suggested) or the Han Chiense driving out the Tibetans from their homeland, will stand the test of time has to be seen. But polemics would not help much in the process of this "seeing" or understanding. Pidiji (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Pidiji, even before Qing dynasty Tibet had been part of China. Read this Wikipedia entry Tibet. Xingdong (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Pidiji in effect is admitting that India had imperial colonial intention towards Tibet, he is just making excuse by saying "you did it too"! So this is clear, Tibet independency is just a smoke screen, it is not an issue in India's China war and need not be discussed here. The issue is that India trying to grab South Tibet for itself!WikiCC (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

China "entered" Tibet but India "annexed" goa

Am I the only one that sees a problem with this? Either it should be made clear that China invaded Tibet (see the Wikipedia article... [18]) or the annexation of Goa should be aptly renamed. This article is teeming with Pro-China bias that is slowly creeping in.Vedant (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Invasion of Goa was very well known to the world as an invasion, since India was taking a piece of land not originally its. The Goa can not compare with Tibet. There is a major difference in nature, and you obviously ignore that. Xingdong (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. The "Invasion of Goa" would have been equalled to a hypothesised People's Liberation Army annexing Macao, should the Portugese have chosen to hold on to it and not to return it to China, but the PLA didn't made any move due to the CMC's concern of international repercussion. Tibet, however, was another story altogether. In fact, it was originally a part of Qing China when it was forcibily annexed by the British East India Company. --Dave1185 (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Tibet wasn't annexed by any country -- British wanted very much to annex it or at least make it independent from China, but it failed. Lord McMahon lamented that he could have done it with more effort, but what he could achieve was a "McMahon Line" which was a result of secret negotiation with Tibetans and giving in from them, on the condition that British would help them to break away from China. Tibetans later even disgarded the line because the British didn't achieve their goal. Xingdong (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Right and I'm sure the Portugese were the original rulers of Goa because it's not like they colonized it or anything. Ooh and its not like Goa was a part of the Mauryan empire or other ancient Indian empires right? Vedant (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Goa wasn't part of India or British India. India "incorporated" the territories after the invasion. If you want to trace back to 3 century BC, you might as well go back millions years ago and this talk will be endless. Xingdong (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Right and the PRC's territorial claims to Tibet go back to what? Ancient history. Why is it okay to rationalize one event but villify the other? If you make that argument for the PRC, you can do the same for India. The fact of the matter is that arguing that China reclaimed Tibet but that India annexed Goa is hardly what I'd call neutral.

Vedant, as I already said for many times, they are not the same in nature. Xingdong (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Please elaborate why they aren't same in nature (besides one relating to your country and other to some other country you clearly don't like).Can you provide some reference showing differences?

Also Goa was a part of India.[[19]]. Goa war a part of Indian Mauryan empire as early as 3 BCE.

Cheers, Swift&silent (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Swift&silent (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Swift&silent, look at the maps published in British India entry, the Goa was clearly marked as "Portuguese" during British India. This is one of the differences why Goa and Tibet are different in nature. I understand there are historical and sometimes emotional factors, but the territorial issues are better settled down by negotiations -- HongKong for example. Xingdong (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

And Vedant, I have undone your revision 317966539[20]. Xingdong (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

@Xingdong Please read the wikipedia article I referenced above.It contains brief history of Goa and also has link to detailed history which clearly states it was a part of India as early as 3 century BC(Now 3 BCE)[[21]].The Portuguese came to India in 1498 [[22]] i.e. 1501 Years later!!!Also the Map you spoke of cannot be taken as a base.Because it would mean as soon as a country is occupied by aggressors its history is destroyed even if it attains freedom later.Also if we take your approach and apply it to Japan conquered China that would mean anything relating to Chinese borders/geography prior to December 9 1937 [[23]](when Japanese conquered chinese capital) is inconsequential!

Also to alleviate your confusion (no offense buddy) The Goa was a part of India then conquered by Portuguese then retaken by India.Perhaps this owning/capture/retking was root of confusion (And it is confusing).

One more thing don't edit/revert a page without citing proper references and discussions.Simply saying this is wrong and thus I am reverting it is not enough.It comes under "rogue editing".

As always I am open to corrections. Cheers,

Swift&silent (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Swift&silent and Vedant , I guess you didn't read my previous posts carefully. Indian government (under British rule) recognized that Goa was a territory that did not belong to India. This has been properly documented and well recognized by the world as a fact. This is one of the main differences between Goa and Tibet. India invaded Goa and "incorporated" Goa are also well known. China didn't need to "incorporated" Tibet because it was part of China. If there is no more controversy here, we need to revert Vedant's change.

You may say Goa at the time was colonial legacy and was taken away by force so India should take it back by force. Then the South Tibet especially Tawang area has been traditionally Tibetan's habitant and the McMahon Line was clearly colonial era mistake, do you think China shouldn't take it back by force? If India can take Goa back by force, of course China can do same thing on South Tibet. I think you are playing double standard here.

By the way, Japanese invaded China during WW2, but it didn't take China's territory and eventually it surrendered to China and its national leaders were going through proper justice process and received death sentence. I don't know what comparision you wanted to make. Xingdong (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, don't attempt to confuse any issues. China did not "enter" Tibet, it invaded it (as many sources can attest to). Whether China did so because it felt Tibet was an integral part of China is not of particular relevance. In addition, you would be contradicting numerous other Wikipedia articles by changing the wording of the article. With regards to the Indian claim to Goa, I'm sure you are aware that British-India is not the Republic of India (an independent nation). Thus the territorial claims of the Government of British-India are not the same as the territorial claims of the Republic of India. Just because one finds the harsh realities of history unpalatable, does not mean one can unilaterally decide to rewrite history. Vedant (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh by the way, I thought you were going to report me because I told you not to make unwanted modifications to my talk page. Vedant (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Vedant, I am more than happy to discuss this topic further with you. First of all, if Tibet was an independent territory and China recognized that, then I think we could call China "invaded" Tibet. However, this is not the case here. While Goa was not part of British India, and Replic of Indian maps between 1947 and 1960 still show that Goa was bracketed as (Portuguese). And clearly India invaded Goa and "incorported" it as part of India (did China "incorporated" Tibet? no such thing).

If you want to call white black, and reference a few sources saying that too, the white still won't become black. I remember you said I am also willing to accept that mistakes were made on both sides and that plenty of blame can be laid on India. in a previous post. If this is what you have discovered (frankly that is what I think too), why in India the public refer to this border war as Chinese invasion?? There are a few wikipedia articles that are severely flawed, that is why I am here today.

I think the "chinese entered Tibet" part was from either Calvin or Maxwell, and we should put it back. We shouldn't modify reliable source anyway, right?Xingdong (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see why you're trying to bring India into this. This has NOTHING to do with India. China invaded Tibet. I don't see what relevance this has to India (Please enlighten me). To reciprocate, let me do you a favour and enlighten you as well. Visit this Wikipedia article and look at the [24] 12 different citations which refer to the Invasion of Tibet. Are you attempting to argue that Neville Maxwell is more of an authority on the matter than the United States Congress, the German Bundestag, Jane's Defence Weekly, International Commission of Jurists and the Center for World Indigenous Studies? Ah, let me see if I can find the Wikipedia article on invasion. Oh, there it is, for your convenience let me post the definition of Invasion as given by the article : "An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be used as a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself". Most interesting that it says that Invasions can also be the source of wars. ;) Also notice how it said geopolitical entity and not say... nation or independent nation. I would however very much like to hear your argument on why Tibet or the contemporary Tibet Autonomous Region is not a geopolitical entity though, it should prove to be highly entertaining.

In addition, I stand by the claim that I made in that mistakes were made ON BOTH SIDES and that BOTH PARTIES can be blamed for the conflict (though I fail to see the relevance to this edit that you have taken issue with). Also, please enlighten all of us again and provide me with some references to Wikipedia articles that reference the "Chinese invasion of India" and I will correct them. Ofcourse if your enemy is Indian public opinion or the Indian media, I'm sure you're aware that India being a democratic country does not believe in a policy of state control over media or forcefully attempt to change public perception on matters. That being said I'm not sure why the Indian public refers to it as a Chinese invasion. Can you comment on why the Chinese government issues separate visas to citizens of Jammu and Kashmir? I'm sure you can but I think you'll realize that it has no relevance with respect to the edit I made. :) Vedant (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, just out of curiosity, what articles have you attempted to improve? It seems like the last 300 or so of your changes have been to either to the Sino-Indian War article or this talk page. Aside from that it looks like you've also made some edits to Changting County and the Simla accord of 1914.Vedant (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort to dig out the definition of "invasion", Vadant. The definition fits Goa case perfectly, however it doesn't fit Tibet case. And you already know why, don ya? Please revert your edit at least because you are modifying citation from reliable sources. If you think the word is controvercial, then after gaining enough consensus you can put your edit back.

There are too many places saying "Chinese invasion" on India. One example is in this article under "Aftermath" section, "India" sub-section, which says "...Jawaharlal Nehru, who was seen as responsible for failing to anticipate the Chinese invasion". Please correct it if you are really willing to.

Other things you mentioned are not relevant to this entry. Xingdong (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel the invasion of Tibet should stay since I just provided a dozen sources that are far more credible and respected than Maxwell (who like all poor scholars has a history of making flawed predictions and cherry picking facts). As usual you didn't provide a reason (perhaps there is none) as to why Tibet doesn't qualify as an invasion. It seems to me that you're attempting to argue that something is because it is which last time I checked is not sufficient grounds to challenge an edit. For your kind information I have LEFT Goa as an annexation though I personally do not believe it was.

Vadant, what you feel or think is your personal thing. In wikipedian words, this is called "POV". I think you have been editing this article with your personal emotions. If everyone edits the entry based on whatever he/she feels "right", then this article will again be trashed. Remember you may be modifying a citation from reliable source without realizing what you've done wrong.Xingdong (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't have a single citation, I have 12. It's only POV if I push a claim that may be un-cited or is a sign of bias. The fact is that the PRC invaded Tibet and attempting to deny that is pushing POV, don't change the citation. I didn't remove any reliable citation by referencing the invasion of Tibet (infact I added 12 very reliable ones). I think it's you that is trying to PUSH POV and trash the article by attempting to remove reliable cites. Don't engage in rogue editing. Vedant (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Vadant, there is little dispute that Tibet was not a separate entity when PLA entered Tibet in 1951, while Goa was a separate entity in 1960. This is also by your own definition. I would say we should maintain old text that "China entered Tibet".

I would prefer references from those who are specialized in the India and China issues like Calvin, Garver and Maxwell, instead of references that have strong political and ideological senses. Xingdong (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That's strange, you would think that the German bundestag and the International Commission of Jurists would be neutral sources. After all, the International Commission of Jurists is interested mainly in Human Rights and the Rule of Law. I'm pretty sure though that you would object to the inclusion of the United States Congress (an important organ of the US Government) citing possible bias though it's somewhat curious to note that Calvin's paper was also the work of the United States Government. I'm very curious to hear your opposition to Jane's Defence Weekly, after all its not like it's state controlled media or anything. Vedant (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sino-Indian war

There are obviously many ways to look at an issue - from the point of view of old history, old texts or documents, or from more recent history over the last 100-150 years or so; or both. To draw a straight line from the Mongol conquest of Tibet under Genghis Khan in the 13th century (who set up the Yuan dynasty in China) via the Ming dynasty (whose writ really did not run in Tibet) to the Manchu imperial re-conquest of Tibet in 1720/30 to the demise of the Manchu empire by the 1860s and assertion of independence by Tibet, forgetting about the wobbles and gaps in between would be re-writing history according one's wishes or pre-dilections. Again use of polemics and ascribing motives to other parties while holding oneself to be lily-white is neither fair nor possible. The points made earlier about China's acceptance of the Tibetan Pleinipotentiary as an equal at the Simla Conference of 1913 (which resulted in the Macmahon Line) and the statement by Premier Chou En-lai at New Delhi on 30th April 1960 need to be addressed and answered.Pidiji (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer is that India did not want a settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question, period.

Pidiji is trying to raise smoke screen again. India was trying to grab South Tibet for itself, nothing to do with Tibet. Keep raising the Tibet issue shows that you really can not come up with any legitimate argument. You are just trying to side track and to smear, hoping that would justify a blatant colonial land grab.

Tibet was and is a part of China, recognized internationally, including by India, even Dalai Lama does not want to separate Tibet from China. If you don’t think Tibet is, or should have been, part of China you can discuss it under the “Tibet” entry. Here I will just say “eat your heart out”, and if you can’t swallow, go fight for the liberation of Nagaland, or Ghourkharland, or Kashmir.WikiCC (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sino-Indian War

The Sino-Indian border dispute broke out into the open when the Chinese built a road around 1951-52 through Aksai Chin area of Ladakh in India to link Sinkiang with the western Ari district of Tibet. Generally speaking, when a border area (of any two countries) has not been thoroughly surveyed and demarcated and may possibly be even in dispute, no one side should go and unilaterally occupy it or build a road across it merely because it is convenient. It is indeed a misfortune in terms of enormous human suffering that instead of engaging the Tibetan in a political dialogue about their possible inclusion as an "autonomous region" as provided in the Constitution of Communist China, the latter chose to occupy Tibet by force of arms, following the example of the earlier Manchu imperialist forces.Pidiji (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sino-Indian War

It looks like someone has totally edited out my talk submission of 21st October 2009 that if there is any talk of "eating the heart out" as one of the correspondents have written on 20th October, then one can also suggest that some others concerned should equally "eat their heart out" with respect to Taiwan, Korea, loss of Kashgar, Yarkand and other Central Asia areas once under the Manchu empire, and also Annam ( now called Vietnam). History has to be respected even it is not entirely to one's liking.Pidiji (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Indo-Cina relations

Mr. Xingdong sounds like a broken record as he keeps on repeating his clichés time and again. He hasn’t provided anything new to the discussion apart from his usual tosh. Perhaps he is following the Goebbelsian dictum that if a lie is repeated enough number of times, it attains the aura of the real truth itself. I suggest that he shouldn’t be a naïve jingo and not swallow hook, line and sinker everything that is barfed up by his government, its official documents and its sympathetic sources and then regurgitate it everywhere. Rather it would serve him well if he could use something called brain, provided he really has anything such and use it to discern the chaff from the wheat. No one is infallible and so is Neville Maxwell who is being tomtomed by him as the ultimate authority on Sino-Indian war of 1962. His neutrality and objectivity is very much questionable and rightly so. Also, he should realise that the World Wide Web or much less the Wikipedia is not the ultimate source of all knowledge and information in this universe.

And to the Chinese government about reclaiming your so called 'South Tibet';'In your dreams baby, in your dreams', and even that is going to be a dreadful nightmare for you. 'Bold text (Mystand (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

pretty much shows...

that wiki is useless in articles where one country got its feeling hurt by another. there are plenty of well written military history books published on the matter that show a clear consensus on what happened but the majority of the sources are websites used by both sides to drum up support or re-fighting the war 40 years on. too many chefs ruins the broth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.242.4 (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sino-Indian War

I think that the discussions are finally getting somewhere - that facts and history have to be squarely faced even if they are inconvenient to the given official line. Also unlike the India Office Records which archive much of the documents of the British colonial rule and are available to researchers,the Chinese documents and sources - certainly not for the duration of the Communist regime since 1949 - are not open in equal measure. Fortunately there are the books based on original documents, such as those by Alastair Lamb,Dorothy Woodman and Amar Kaur Jasbir Singh specifically on the border issue, history of Tibet by Charles Bell and H.E. Richardson, history of China by K.S. Latourette and so on which do help in getting a better understanding of the background and thge issues.Pidiji (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sino Indian War

It is interesting and instructive how after the Indian and Chinese Premiers met recently at the ASEAN Conference in Thailand end October and agreed to discuss issues with mutual respect and understanding that the polemics have suddenly died out. There was no "Forward policy" on the part of India at all before 1959, long after the Chinese occupation of Tibet in 1950, renunciation in 1954 of extra-territorial rights in Tibet by India that she inherited from British Indian government and building of the Tibet Sinkiang road th rough Aksai Chin in 1955-56. It is almost impossible - except in more recent times with advanced materials and logistics - to maintain a border outpost at 15000-18000 feet altitude because of the snow-fall, avalanches and so on. It was in 1958 that India was taken copletely by surprise at the evidence of the road as in Aksai Chin. After all no one country should without prior consultations build any road or logistic system close to a border. This was followed by incursions by the Chinese at Longju - and the rest of the conflict developed almost inevitably. Pidiji (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The border clashes in 1959 convinced Mao that the Indian Army was pathetic, so he started planning a bigger offensive. I don't think the Forward Policy or the highway in Aksai Chin had anything to do with it. The Indian government knew about the highway from the beginning, and there were press reports early on as well. Kauffner (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sino Indian War

A look at the Wikipedia site on "Events leading to the Sino Indian War" shows -- "After coming to power, the PRC announced that its army would be occupying Tibet. India sent a letter of protest to China proposing negotiations on the Tibet issue. The newly formed PRC was more active in posting troops to the Aksai Chin border than the newly formed Indian republic was. India decided to take moves to ensure a stable Indo-Chinese border. In August 1950, China expressed its gratitude to Indian attempts to "stabilize the Indo-Chinese border".....By 1951, China had extended numerous posts within Indian claimed territory in Aksai Chin. The Indian government, on the other hand, concentrated its military efforts on stopping Ladakh from being taken by Pakistani troops and did not establish itself in Aksai Chin. On various occasions in 1951 and 1952, however, the government of China expressed the idea that there were no frontier issues between India and Chinese Tibet to be worried about. In 1956, Nehru expressed conern to Zhou Enlai that Chinese maps showed some 120,000 square kilometres of Indian territory as Chinese.Zhou responded that there were errors in the maps and that they were of little meaning.He stated that the maps needed revising from previous years where such ideas were considered to be true.[2] In November 1956, Zhou again repeated his assurances that he had no claims based on the maps." This seems to be a reasonable summary of the background to the Sino Indian War. The condition of Indian armed forces in 1961-62 may be considdered "pathetic" but they were still able to throw Pakistani forces out of much of Kashmir in 1948 and exact quite heavy casualties on the Chinese on the north east frontier in spite of logistical drawbacks and check them quite well in Aksai Chin in 1962.Pidiji (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

incursion?

"... In response to Chinese incursions, India initiated a Forward Policy in which it placed outposts along the border,..."

any source and example for the "incursion"? in maxwell/etc the forward policy was not a 'response', in seems? please delete the response phrase or provide a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.160.180 (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Maxwell is a Maoist and a very partisan source -- There were certainly Chinese raids in 1959 and later. But I don't think the Forward Policy can be considered a response. The idea of acquiring territory with symbolic actions and "minimal force" was Nehru's dream, something he had talked about for many years, even before he became prime minister. But it wasn't until 1961 that Nehru able to appoint an army chief who would do things his way. Kauffner (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Please remove the "incursion" part. Kauffner is right on Nehru's dream part. Especially after Indian invasion of Goa, the whole country was hyped and the public was so convinced of their military power. Forward Policy was Nehru's initiative, not a response. Xingdong (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sino Indian War

There seem to be two basic angles to this issue - one the immediate or proximate provocation for the War and the more distant factors lying embedded in history. According to well-known references like Alastair Lamb,Dortothy Woodman and Amar Kaur Jasbir Singh, who have examined numerous records at the India Office and Foreign Office Records in London, a major problem was that China on one hand claimed t hey had suzereinty or even as they at times claimed, "sovereinty" over Tibet by virtue of conquest of Tibet by the Mongol emperors in the 13th century and by the manchu Imperial forces in 1720-30, and on the other could in no way enforce their decisions and directions on the increasingly independent Tibetans, especeially from about 1850/60. In other words the Chiense wanted their suzerianty to be acknowledged but not tested in actuality by being able to enforce it on the Tibetans. By 1911-12 when the republican revolution under Dr. Sun Yat-sen broke out in China, the Chinese authority almost vanished from Tibet, and the Tibetans had practically driven out the Chinese upto the eastern most border near Tachienlu. There the situation stayed till 1950 when the Communist Chinese forces entered Tibet in 1950.And the rest would be found from the UN Security Council debates on Tibet between 1950 and 1954. The more immediate provocation was the "cartographic incursions" by China between 1950 and 1958 where on one hand the Chinese authorties decried the "errors" in the maps produced by the them as "old", "non-authoratative" and on the other setting up boundary pillars and engaging in patrols, to which India responed likewise. Under these circumstances any thing could go wrong at any time, and it did. And India was at the receiving end. Another point - please - both the Tibetans and the Indians had (and have) enough documents to substantiate the histoircal basis for their claims about the traditional alignment of the borders (though undemarcated. It is to be noted that in the meetings between the Indian and Chinese officials in 1959-60, the Indian side were able to produce maps of 1:1 million scale, the Chinese had nothing better than 1:5 million scale on which to press their claims.Pidiji (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If only China had produced 1:1 million scale maps, war might have been avoided? You're trying to come up with a theory that doesn't blame either Mao or Nehru, but only some nameless underling mapmaker? Kauffner (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said in the beginning of this talk page, people have forgotten the most essential issue of this war. Xingdong (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sino Indian War

The scale of the map is just one aspect - showing up that the area had not been previously properly surveyed by China, and hence it was hardly proper therefore that they should have built the Sinkiang-Tibet Road in 1956-57 without proper survey and mutual demarcation. At least three boundary commissions were agreed between 1860 and 1910 but for one reason or the other either Tibet or China did not participate.It was ascribed to "ancient and traditional" boundaries, but even these need to be deliniated and demarcated by mutual consent and agreement. The "forward policy" whether of China or of India was a product of those historical ommissions.Pidiji (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Citation

Under Tibet Controversy section, 3rd paragraph, it says:

However, within a short time the PRC announced its intention to reclaim Tibet from the British, and later extended its influence by placing border posts within the Indian-claimed territory of Aksai Chin.[12]

The reference points to a rediff source[25]. However, after reading that article, I did not find it mention PRC's intention to reclaim Tibet "from the British" or anything having that meaning. The closest one is like following:

This was the state of the Great Game when the British left India. In 1949, the Communists came to power in China and shortly thereafter the People's Republic announced its army would be moving into Tibet.

If there is no objection, I am going to modify that to "move into Tibet". Xingdong (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What?Same thing again??? Look Xingdong this topic has been properly discussed several times in this article and it has been clearly understood that "China Invaded Tibet". If one reference is not right according to you than it doesn't give you right to ignore other references provided which include Globalsecurity,utd, and Wikipedia itself (beside other dozens of references). Stop reverting edits by other made with proper references or we will be forced to report you to admins. Kampfgruppe.lehr (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Kampfgruppe.lehr, check the reference before you speak. Xingdong (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel that move into Tibet doesn't accurately portray the situation, reclaim or invade sounds more appropriate though. I do think however that the "from the British" part can be removed.Vedant (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Vedant, I agree we should use "reclaimed" instead of "moved" or "invaded". Even though Tibet's self-proclaimed independence was not recognized, at least they announced themselves. And the Chinese getting into Tibet wasn't without effort. Xingdong (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse because it was an invasion (backed up by 12 sources) I think invasion sounds better. Don't you? Vedant (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Forcefully retake also works. Reclaimed seems like an attempt to cover up what actually happened and I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that right Xingdong? Vedant (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Vedant, I would love to discuss technical issues related to this wikipedia entry. I won't respond to any personal attacks because I don't want to lower myself down to the attackers' level. Regarding to "invade" or "reclaim" or "forcefully retake", or "move into", I think we need to go back to orginal source, which is "moved into Tibet". If you have objection to this source, you can refer to other sources. Sounds fair? Xingdong (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you would love to discuss technical issues then discuss them. I don't know what in my response constituted a personal attack, maybe you can enlighten me? You might also want to re-read the definition of personal attacks. I personally think "forcefully retake" or "invade" most accurately reflects what actually occurred. Ofcourse, why don't we see what a few more individuals have to say before anyone engages in rogue edits? :) Vedant (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Vedant, technically I can just remove the context because that is not what the source it is refering to. You can't revert what I do because if you do that it is violation of wikipedia policy. Xingdong (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Again... Personal attack how? No answer? Not surprising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)