Talk:Sino-Indian War/Archive 2

message: These do not appear to be on the main article page.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,829540-2,00.html
To find the other related articles, search for the words "india china war 1962 nehru", without the quotation marks. These articles seem to change slant over time. The earlier ones seem to be more hostile to the Chinese, and communism in general. I have listed some of the article titles below:
"We Were Out of Touch with Reality" Posted Friday, Nov. 2, 1962
-This article includes the words "India, by a mixture of planning, incentive and free enterprise, has made undeniable strides out of poverty, in glaring contrast to Red China's inhuman regimentation, which has brought nothing but hardship and near famine. The invasion may be aimed at disrupting India's political and economic life." 
"Fading Illusions" Posted Friday, Nov. 9, 1962
"Never Again the Same" Posted Friday, Dec. 14, 1962
- A very long (10 page) article. Starts off with the confusion over the Chinese unilateral cease-fire. Details areas where the Chinese military had advantages over the Indian military. Somewhat hostile to communism in places "And Nehru must know that the situation has reached a point where he can never again trust a Red Chinese promise".
It also mentions the idea that Chinese were not planning a full-scale conquest.
"The prevailing theory now is that the Chinese had less ambitious aims to begin with: to take the high ground and the key military passes away from the Indians, and to finally establish, once and for all, Chinese control of the Aksai Chin plateau in Ladakh, so as to safeguard the vital military roads to Sinkiang province. The Chinese may have been unprepared to exploit the almost total collapse of India's armed forces and may even have been surprised by their swift success. On this reading, the terms of the Chinese cease-fire offer become intelligible. The Nov. 7 line would in effect barter away the sizable Chinese gains in NEFA for Indian acceptance of China's property rights in Aksai Chin."
"What War?" Posted Friday, Dec. 14, 1962
"A Lesson in Astigmatism" Posted Monday, Jun 14, 1971
- This article includes input from Neville Maxwell. The article itself is less hostile to the Chinese than the earlier ones.
--80.47.210.255 15:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Magazine Articles 

message: I read the two references associated to Chinese casualties. "3000 Killed or wounded" is not proved anywhere. 
As you can see, one reference is empty. The other mentioned there was no official figures from China side. " Yet, an important example of the limited Chinese information available has been this author's inability to obtain Chinese casualty figures for the Border War. "
Please provide concrete evidences for the number of 3000 or put unknown is a better way to respect the fact.
--Leo 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I check the new source (http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/india/indiachina1962.htm) It only provides the number of 3000, no source or citation provided, not reliable and trustable. --Leo 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty number in China side

message: The indo-sino war is relate to the indo-pak war because all these wars happened in indian territory e.g indo-pak wars were fought rann of kutch, kashmir, and part of punjab. Indo-sino war fought in assam, Ladkh (aski chin) and so on. Assam definitely Indian territory (indo-sino war) and punjab + rajasthan definitely Indian territory. So common thing is a attack on undisputed Indian territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.95.142 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 November 2005
::The fact that you have already prejudged this land to be part of India without even considering the fact that the Chinese in China or the Pakistanis in Pakistan believe that it is theirs also suggests a biased viewpoint. As I stated before, if you put indo-pakistani war you might as well put in the sino-vietnam war of 1980 and the border conflicts between china and russia over the years as part of your reference. the indo-pakistani war has nothing to do with this border conflict between china and india. please open your mind to the viewpoints of others.Kennethtennyson 03:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: However, didn't India lose some of its claimed territory in Aksai Chin, which is adjacent to Kashmir? GABaker 02:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Even if tibet should be independent, indians or tibetians need to fight for independence by yourself. Nobody will grant independence to you for free. By the way, why don't indians argue about land of U.S. should be given to American Indians.
I don't quite understand the reasoning here.....How does the American Indian issue come into a India-China issue? And what do you even know about the American Indian issue? Have you heard about Indian reservations in the USA? The USA is by and large a free country which treats its people well...it would be absurd to even compare the USA with a totalitarian country like China which massacres its own people (Tiannamen Square for instance) or suppresses the peaceful people in Tibet and alters demographics in Tibet by mass emigrations of Han Chinese.
hohoho USA treats its people well. ;)--89.56.244.172 12:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To kennethtennyson

message: I think this should not be left out in the event and cause of the War. Opions are opinions. Facts are facts.
source
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm
"On July 21st,  there was a skirmish in the Chip Chap Val-
ley.  Two Indian soldiers were wounded, the first since Konga
Pass in 1959.  The Chinese protested, and also accused India
of violating the McMahon Line in NEFA. Indeed, General B. M. Kaul, then Chief of the General
Staff, had ordered the establishment of 24 posts along the
McMahon Line.  In June, local Indian commanders had estab-
lished Dhola Post, in Tawang. The relevant issue was that
Dhola Post was one mile north of the McMahon Line, in Chinese
territory even by Indian standards.  On August 4th, Peking
accused  India of violating the McMahon Line (at Dhola), and
of aggression beyond its own claimed border--and therefore
into Chinese territory."
71.109.70.161 06:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dohla post:

message: The source has already been listed somewhere else. It is the globalsecurity.org article.
btw, Khoikhoi's edits seems to be very biased to Indian's POV.
:I've never made any additions to this article. I've only reverted. --Khoikhoi 07:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean you are clean from bias.--202.66.122.225 09:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khoikhoi's edits  and source requested for his Feb1 20:23 edit 

message: I think the Jack Company should be mentioned in the article
Xplorer 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Indian Jack Company

message: The article claims in the intro the war was over Aksai Chin. However this appears to be in correct. As far as I can tell, although Aksai Chin is a disputed region, the war occured over Arunachal Pradesh which is currently administred by India but much of it is claimed by China. Aksai Chin which is administered by China but is claimed by India was not directly a part of the war as far as I can tell. The Indian discovery of the Chinese road in Aksai Chin is listed as a proximate cause but the war was still largely fought in Arunachal Pradesh I believe. If there was significant fighting in Aksai Chin as well, then we need to be more clear in which areas the fighting is occuring (as they are both rather distant from each other). Also the way the intro is written appears to suggest China took control over Aksai Chin during the war but as far as I can tell, they didn't, they already had control as China returned to the original borders. Could someone who knows a bit more edit the article appropriately? I believe the rest of the article is mostly ok, it's simply the intro which is rather poorly written Nil Einne 13:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aksai Chin? 

message: I have copy edited this page. I reworded a few sentences but I don't think I changed the meaning. 
I know nothing about the war, except through reading this article. To me the article seems fair, not singling out one side or the other for blame. It's an interesting dispute, typical of the types of disputes countries get into.
KarenAnn 22:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the copy edit tag 

message: "...however, the total number of killed and wounded on the Chinese side was actually higher."
is there any link to prove this claim ?
--digitalSurgeon 10:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation needed 

message: This section is unencyclopaedic.It deals with emotional issues rather than facts.War Aftermath discussed in international forums should be included.present both sides of the view.Holy---+---Warrior 07:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  After the war section 

message: "they generally fought bravely and professionally in the early phase of the war until their commanders were replaced with Nehru's cronies."
It's not just tone, but the use of weasel words. Manasl 06:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: Some of this article is copied from one of the sources listed at the bottom . While no entire segment has been left together, there are several clear-cut segments where the wording is identical to the Hindustan Times article. Specifically, the segments in the Times' article under "The War." The entire section has been worked into this article, almost word for word. Granted there have been some changes, but segments such as "tried to regroup during the lull in the fighting" and "the outskirts of Tezpur, Assam, a major frontier town nearly 50 km from Assam-North-East Frontier Agency border" particularly caught my eye on the first page. I haven't looked through the other seven pages linked at the bottom of the Times' story, so I'm afraid there is more plagerism within the article. Someone might want to check the remainder of the article and reword the offending sections. WindRunner 10:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagerised content 

message: I've noticed that there is a pro-India bias sneaking into the article. I do hope that strict neutrality is observed and that one group may not try to change facts to make political statements.
The Aftermath section for instance has been completely re-written to down play the Indian failures in the war, I do hope that other wikipedians are keeping a strict observation on this article.
S Seagal 17:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly when did you find the pro-India bias sneaking in? Pl specify the lines which are biased and without proper source. Tx. Idleguy 06:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-India Bias Sneaking In 

message: I didn't know this!! Napoleon12
: May I suggest you to look at Korean war, where China beat UN led by USA. --Leo 04:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest you do not needlessly respond to Trolls with historically inaccurate statements? Idleguy 04:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Suggestion denied. :-)--Leo 13:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is no denying that India lost the 1962 War. Also, I wouldn't pay attention to unemployed Indian guys like Idleguy who distort accepted history for face-saving and pro-Indian purposes. napoleon12 5:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pl see WP:No Personal Attacks. --Idleguy 03:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The answer is here http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm --Leo 17:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Leo, would you mind cutting and pasting the texts here? I can't seem to access the link you provided. Many thanks! BeyRel 02:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WOW, CHINA BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF INDIA!!! 

message: Hello All,
As many of you have stated, my concern here is to establish an accurate account of what occurred, in the interest that maybe future indians and chinese, who will have to face the reality of a continuing border dispute, may bring this to a peaceable end. Barring that, I hope that at least for the sake of history students, we can have an objective account of this war. That said, there are obviously a number of inaccuracies in tandem with this ongoing npov dispute.
Since first person quotes have already been addressed, there is no need for me to touch on the dangers of using diplomatic conversations--replete with double speak and deceit--(irrespective of whether they are indian or chinese) as accurate sources. In order to bring this dispute to an end, a good start would be to compile a mutually verifiable construction of events leading upto the actual outbreak of violence. This article appears to implicate Nehru's government on account of his forward policy. It goes on to note that China had a legitimate interest in this because of the Xizhang-Xinjiang road (fair enough since that was obviously in its interest). What the article fails to mention was that the road was built through Indian-claimed (and presumably administered until that point) territory, without notification to New Delhi. This was before any agreement was reached. 
   
Moreover, articles in the Time archive from that time note that China negotiated it Burmese border utilizing the MacMahon line, and even awarded it a slice of Indian territory. Lastly, articles about the then King Mahendra (again from the Time Archive) note his concern at Chinese maps showing Nepal as part of Chine--calling into question whether Chinese expansion was not a genuine policy. These statements are not meant as a judgement of China, which frankly, conducted its foreign policy expertly. It is however meant to scrutinize claims of Chinese recognition of unequivocal sovereignty for its immediate neighbors.
I do not believe my attempt here will be an end all, and I am sure of incoming criticism; however, it might be helpful if we start by building such a timeline (sourced) so that we may arrive at an accurate casus belli. This article is not meant to judge the morality of a country's actions (let's face it, everyone acts in his interests, well, except maybe Menon). Rather, it should clearly and accurately describe the cold, objective actions that led to the outbreak of violence. Perhaps we could work backwards, starting with China's unilateral ceasefire, and India's obvious defeat. The Time articles also offer an interesting progression of events that might be useful in facilitating the construction of the timeline. If there are objections to the Time articles, please raise them so that concerns may be addressed, and other possible sources suggested.
I sincerely hope that we can resolve the NPOV dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.203.175.175 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: This article is probably the most biased article on Wikipedia. This war signalled that China was the dominant power in the Asian continent, to create this sense of greatness China successfully invaded India, put the Indians in their place and then withdrew knowing that the Indians know who is the stronger military. India's economy and political image sufferred and China succeeded in their mission. All this extra unsourced stuff really doesn't belong to the article and is incredibly biased (and very badly written as well). Traing 03:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it is mostly done by User:Ksyrie, who seems to have taken an ownership point of view on this page. I'm going to be taking a look at their edits. They seem to want it seem like India had strategically advanced into good positions on Chinese territory before the Chinese suddenly became aware of this and decided to fight back. I believe India could have only advanced very slightly into Chinese soil before the Chinese military repelled them with their stronger manpower and firepower. The article as it was created by Ksyrie shows China as consistently politically weak, always suing for peace in the face of the danger of war with India. This was not the case, China wanted to show the rest of the world that it was not a lesser power than India and this was the perfect way to show it. Please don't make it look like China is a middle power-type nation that suddenly upset the great power, because that's what happened in the Korean War (great power upset superpower) but not in the Sino-Indian War. China was confident. Traing 03:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find sources for your assertions. If you have objections to some of the edits, then use citable reputable sources, and don't delete already cited sources. I deleted some of his uncited statements, but restored the cited descriptions of the battles which you removed.--Yuje 05:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article 

message: Thanks for the fixes. Quick points:
*Looks like you don't actually have a source saying on Pakistan's motives, and you just made it up, since you can't even provide what the cite says. If you haven't read a cite, and don't know what it says, then don't make up statements based on them. The book itself is not cited in the book you mentioned, other than being listed as further reading. Since you make the claims, burden of proof is on you. 
*Kaul's orders to take the pass aren't undue weight. It wasn't a minor skirmish, it was a strategic objective. I'll expand on it, and explain that he chose to send the patrol instead of assaulting. 
*The only think Calvin says about the Cuban missile crisis was that it preoccupied Russia. It doesn't say anything about western nations drawing a connection between this 
*Aksai Chin was also part of Xinjiang and the eastern area was part of South Tibet, too. India can make the claims, but it never had control of all of Kashmir, or all of the Aksai Chin. This link which you so gracious provided, says about areas claimed by India, that "Indian forces cannot be physically present on every inch of ground and therefore to say that Chinese have claimed more land over time may be incorrect. Old Demchok was never on the Indian side of the LAC. Moreover, the Indian forces do not recognize a difference between Old Demchok and New Demchok." Labelling such areas never controlled by India as "captured Indian land" is POVed. Here's a map which shows the Chinese-controlled areas prior to September 7, 1962.  Taken from this article . The article clearly claims that the Chinese had occupied these areas prior to the war, not India. --Yuje 04:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More of Traing's edits 2

message: To me, it is much better to focus on what has happened in 1962 war.  There is no need to second guess the diplomatic action and words of war since then.  From the description leading up to the war, it is very clear the position held by both side and the arguments and skirmish were and are the extension of the same old argument.  The following section sounds more like a face saving rather than neutral POV.
In 1967, an armed conflict between the two sides occurred in Sikkim. The conflict was dubbed the "Chola incident". A group of Indian Gurkha rifles noticed Chinese troops surrounding a sentry post in Sikkim. After a heated argument over the control of a boulder, a Chinese soldier bayoneted an Indian sentry, triggerring the start of a short-range firefight.The Chola Incident The Chinese troops signalled a ceasefire after 3 hours of fighting, but later scaled Point 1450 to establish themselves there. The Indians outflanked them the next day to regain Point 1450 and the Chinese retreated back across the border. The short skirmish did not escalate into a conflict after diplomacy between the two countries solved the issue. 
In 1984, squads of Indian soldiers began actively patrolling the dispute area and set up an observation post for the summer in Sumdorong Cha Valley. The Indian team left the area before the winter.A.G. Noorani, "Perseverance in peace process", India's National Magazine, August 29 2003. In the winter of 1986, the Chinese deployed their troops to the Sumdorong Chu before the Indian team could arrive in the summer and built a Helipad at Wandung. India's Land of the Rising Sun Deccan Herald The New Delhi government reacted swiftly and the Chinese withdrew before any conflict could arise
-- 128.231.88.4 18:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of "Later border disputes"?

message: I'm not the only one who has made controversial edits diff:
#Yuje consistently rewords NEFA to say north of the McMahon Line when Calvin says the battle was in disputed territory in NEFA.
#Yuje consistenly simplifies the result to simply say "Chinese victory" instead of a more informative description.
#Yuje deleted this paragraph without explanation: "In 1913-14, representatives of Britain, China, and Tibet attended a conference in Simla, India and drew up an agreement concerning Tibet's status and borders. The McMahon Line, a proposed boundary between Tibet and India for the eastern sector, was drawn by British negotiator Henry McMahon on a map attached to the agreement. All three representatives initialed the agreement, but Beijing immediately objected to the proposed Sino-Tibet boundary and repudiated the agreement. After approving a note which stated that China could not enjoy rights under the agreement unless she ratified it, the British and Tibetan negotiators signed the Simla Convention as a bilateral accord. McMahon had been instructed not to sign bilaterally with Tibetans if China refused, but he did so without the Chinese representative present and then kept the declaration secret. "
#Yuje renames "Events leading up to the war" as the "Indian Forward Policy".
#Yuje deleted "One week prior to the war, Zhou Enlai visited Nehru in New Delhi, promising there would be no war between the nations and reiterating his wishes to solve the dispute diplomatically.", again no explanation.
#Yuje removed the Sino-Indian War image with a map showing Aksai Chin and NEFA, again, no explanation.
#Removed sourced information: "In the winter of 1986, the Chinese deployed their troops to the Sumdorong Chu before the Indian team could arrive in the summer and built a Helipad at Wandung. India's Land of the Rising Sun Deccan Herald The New Delhi government reacted swiftly and the Chinese withdrew before any conflict could ariseA.G. Noorani, "Perseverance in peace process", India's National Magazine, August 29 2003." and replaced it with unsourced information "In 1984, squads of Indian soldiers began actively patrolling the dispute area and set up an observation post for the summer in Sumdorong Cha Valley. The Indian team left the area before the winter."
#Removed sourced information: "On November 20, 2006 Indian politicians from Arunachal Pradesh appealed to parliament to take a harder stance on the PRC following a military buildup on the border similar to that in 1962.India soft on Arunachal Pradesh"
I request answers to these problems. Traing 06:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I revert in this dispute I go through all the edits you made and add any legitimate ones. I would reccomend you doing the same. And while it is Ksyrie's edit, by letting it be included you are making it your edit just like you keep accusing me of talking about "routine military patrols" when I added nothing of the sort, just reverted to a version which had such text in it. And I believe it is wrong to place China's claims on Tibet, it's military buildup along the border and all of the negotiations prior to the war into the heading of "India's Forward Policy". Traing 22:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Yuje's edits

message: Traing added this edit: "China since withdrew its claim from part of NEFA (Sikkim and Assam) and also has silenced its claims over most of Arunachal Pradesh apart from Tawang.(ref name="IPCS")Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies(/ref) This is controversial, as this means the intrusion within these regions were completely unjustified during the war."
I invite anyone to go read those two articles and see exactly where it says this. The first summarizes Chinese border disputes, and says nowhere that China gave up the most of the Arunachal Pradesh claim, nor does it make mention of Tawang. The second one accuses India of being soft on the border dispute, nothing of Chinese silencing claims on Arunachal Pradesh. And from there, Traing adds his own little editorial to tell us readers that that this is controversial and that China's claims were "completely unjustified". I invite anyone to look at the links themselves and compare with Traing's edits, quoted above.--Yuje 09:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You donn't need to refute him one instance by one instance.The Wiki asked for verifiable resources and he just came up with the resources which favoured his POV.Go direct add what you find,Maybe sometimes there are contradictory statements in the wiki article,but the readers can make their conclusions.User:Traing is totally biased,s/he keep other from talking and tried to maintain his or her POV in this article whatever the truth is.--Ksyrie 09:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not doing this only to try to convince Traing, but to justify my edits, and to explicitly list out the parts I thought were POV, so that he can try to improve his edits in the future to be less POV, if he feels inclined to do so. If not, listing all these points also lets other editors know which particular points are biased, inaccurate, or misleading, and why, and they can correct the article also without me having to patrol the page against trolls and POV-pushers. --Yuje 22:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Where does it say that? The first link says,  and  and  and  and  and  It doesn't say anywhere in the article about giving up claims anywhere. In fact, it seems to indicate the opposite. The second link doesn't say this, either. It was the response to the Chinese claim on eastern sector. And just as recently as half a year ago, the claims to the entirety of the eastern portion were restated by the Chinese.  So, not even the first sentence is accurate.--Yuje 22:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The first sources says "the claim on Sikkim was dropped and its accession to India was recognized". That wasn't so hard... Traing 22:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's the part about the claim to Arunachal Pradesh being dropped? Did that come out of nowhere? Again, the article doesn't say this, but Traing's edit claims this, and then says that therefore Chinese claims in the eastern section, which lie in Arunachal Pradesh were unjustified. First, he misquotes the source and makes a false statement, and then a POV claim based on the first.--Yuje 23:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It says that within Arunachal Pradesh, China is claiming Tawang. Indicating that the rest of Arunachal Pradesh is out of their interests. I'll see whether I can find another source. Traing 04:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll save you the trouble. Just a few months ago, the Chinese ambassador to India restated the Chinese claims to the Arunachal Pradesh, all of it, not just Tawang. , and this was an official statement, not an off the cuff remark. --Yuje 09:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is what I mean by misquoting and misleading