Talk:Sino-Indian War/Archive 3

message: *It was the indian  government who took the initiatives to break the status quo by the forward policy.
*It was the Indian troops who took the first attack in the disputable zone,while some users just want to neglect it or deny it.
*It was the Indian government who didn't want to solve it by diplomatic methods
All I had edited  are  deliberately removed for demonstrating the indian who suffered while chinese were invaders.
It was Lying by omission or mislead these users want to convince the readers that chinese were invaders while indians were peace goers.But in reality,It was the indian who were more provocative and the 1962 chinese offence was just the chiense preemptive war to counterweight.--Ksyrie 10:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide sources. India's forward policy was in response to Chinese advances in Aksai Chin. India wanted to cut of their resource supply and thus force them to retreat back into Chinese territory. Traing 22:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Blaming the forward policy is an arguement Maxwell came up with long after the war was over. At the time, China didn't blame India. They said it all the fault of the "imperialistic" McMahon Line. For India, it was only the legal boundary which was non-negotiable. IMO, negotiations on the legal boundary would have been a waste of time since the two sides are so far apart on this issue. But there was plenty of diplomatic activity concerning the line of actual control, no man's lands, etc. When Nehru told parliament in 1959 about the road through Aksai Chin, he said it wasn't worth fighting for. Kauffner 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt whether the Aksai Chin is within the chinese claimed border or indian claimed border.And aksai chin seems to be far from the either the line of actual control or McMahon Line.--Ksyrie 09:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What some users want to cover up

message: Traing, I noticed you have made a lot of unnecessary and biased editing, including some simple distortion of fact.  How could you change Neville Maxwell's book title from India's China War to China's India War.  I respect everyone has their own view, politically and nationally, or what ever, but make sure when you are editing the text, you are no longer just an Idian or a Chinese, you are editor in a strictly neutral point of view.  This is called professionalism.
*Neville Maxwell's China's India WarMaxwell, Neville, India's China War, New York, Pantheon, 1970.
Ningye 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not do that, it must have been someone else that edited during my edits or something like that. Sorry about that. Traing 03:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neville Maxwell's ''China's India War''?? 

message: Indian claim the legal border line,the McMahon Line seemed not so legal.Some british just drawed a line and didn't get any valid agreement or treaty.And the clever indian wanted to repeat what the englishman had done before.--Ksyrie 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not at all surprising you hold those views. Traing 23:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: China recognizes the McMahon Line as a "Line of Actual Control," but not as a legal boundary. The difference doesn't seem to have any practical significance. It's just a silly word game, "a distinction without a difference," as the lawyers say. The 1962 war was about Mao's need to whup someone so that everyone would know he was still the man even after Liu humiliated him. There are some real Sino-Indian boundary disputes involving bits of territory like Thagla Ridge or Kongka Pass. But the McMahon Line issue is bogus -- it doesn't involve any actual territory. Kauffner 19:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It that line McMahon Line legal?

message: I found Traing's edition of the peace process arrives to a conclusion of his own.  There is no neutral material to back it up. 
For example, "China remains fairly unilateral in their thinking.".  What do you mean 'fairly'.  When, Where and What did China do as referred in this paragraph?  Reference IPCS is not found and is it a neutral source that can be verified independently?
Another example, "Over the past two years, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, an area not in dispute.".  First, when is the past two years. Please always spell out at which date, or from when to when, what has happened. Secondly, where is Chumar or Chumar region?  Is there any proof from Chinese source that they concede it to India or the area is not in dispute?  From my understanding, it's part of vague concept of LAC which was and is disputed by both sides.  
Please edit and remove those inaccurate claims.
128.231.88.4 18:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Peace process" conclusion? 

message: Yuje, what do you want???? You cannot place restrictions on me for every one of my edits. I am citing directly from internet-based references. WHAT is your problem??? Your comment that I should have to go to the talk page for consensus before editing is against the spirit of Wikipedia, anon IPs that conform to your POV have more rights than a logged in user like me who is getting to know Wikipedia slowly. You cannot undermine the spirit of Wikipedia. Traing 06:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem? You're not simply adding new sources. You're reverting and deleting old information, ignoring other's edits on the way. And I and a few other users regard a great many of your edits as controversial, and policy is that you should try to achieve Wikipedia:Concensus, so you should try going and explaining and justifying your edits and discuss them. So far, you have never explained any reverts or deletions. --Yuje 07:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's all that above? Also, can you please allow me to revert you and then make some edits and then revert back and that is the version I support. Thanks. Traing 07:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yuje 

message: Yuje, you claim to explain all your edits, so start explaining:
#Replaced date= October 10 — November 21, 1962Calvin. War was never declared and thus the beginning of the conflict is a matter of dispute. According to James Barnard Calvin's Timeline, the first heavy fighting occurred on October 10. Calvin's chapter detailing the Border War also begins on October 10. with date= October 20 — November 21, 1962. POV-pushing??? Surely not.
#Deleted "China's policy on Tibet did much to heighten the conflict and tensions between the two nations. The perceptions of India as a capitalist expansionist body intent on the independence of Tibet to create a buffer zone between India proper and China was fundamentally erroneous. The negative rhetoric led to what Zhou himself called the Sino-Indian conflict. Because of these false fears, China treated every next move from India in the 1960s with suspicion and the Indian Forward Policy sealed Chinese suspicions of Indian expansionism and led to their decision for war with India."
#Deleted "Garver argues that one of the major factors leading to China's decision for war with India was a common tendency of humans "to attribute others behavior to interior motivations, while attributing their own behavior to situational factors.". Studies from China published in the 1990s confirmed that the root cause for China going to war with India was the perceived aggression in Tibet, with the forward policy simply catalyzing the aggressive Chinese reaction."
#Deleted "China kept the territory which they had affirmed total control of in Aksai Chin but returned all the territory captured from the North East Frontier Agency. China since withdrew its claim from part of NEFA (Sikkim and Assam).Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies Over the following months, vehicles and prisoners of war were returned by both sides unconditionally as a show of goodwill."
#Deleted "The CIA had already begun operations in bringing about change in Tibet." which is a fact which provides context.
#Replaced "Since 2004, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, which is not even claimed by China." to Over the past two years, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, an area not in dispute.
:Other changes we have already discussed above. Traing 07:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yuje, explain these then: 

message: Alright guys... I was just passing by and noticed that this is starting to look like an edit war.  Would you guys be amenable to filing a Request for Comment?  —Umofomia 07:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC? 

message: Per BBC, China never acknowledged the India sovereignty to Sikkim, however, it did soften its position and may tacitly accept it.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3015840.stm
But it is more accurate not to overstate the fact as Traing states:
::China has officially recognized Sikkim as part of India. Traing 00:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IPCS!!!! Why waste my time, are these accepted?  Traing 09:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade through border between China and India near Sikkim 

message: Traing states the following based on this IPCS article.  http://www.ipcs.org/newIpcsSeminars2.jsp?action=showView&kValue=2184
This IPCS article is more like a personal discussion and comments between Dr. Srikanth Kondapalli and
Prof. Mira Sinha Bhattacharjea.  Deleted. 
Moreover, Traing stretches the fact even in the article.  The article states only  yet Traing's edit, "Since 2004, Chinese military forces have increased patrolling of the Chumar region, which is not even claimed by China." (emphasize added).  Both parties regularly exchanges maps and diplomatic notes on the dispute.  It's still an ongoing thing.
And "China has taken more steps towards border domination in recent years and China is in a more advantageous military positions at this point." (emphasize added) is clearly POV, which has no mention and facts backing it up at all.  Please at least elaborate what the steps China has had taken and what advantageous military positions has had happened before this paragraph could be accepted.
Traing, please base your statement with neutral sources and facts.  Not all articles are acceptable.  The statement from one side is only admissible when it is helpful for the readers to understand both side's story.  It needs to be clearly marked as such too. See WP:RS
Ningye 03:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traing's POV and IPCS doesn't qualify as reliable source 

message: *Traing says, "The motive for the Forward Policy was to cut off the supply routes for Chinese troops posted in NEFA and Aksai Chin"
**Calvin says, "India's purpose was to pursue the forward policy to drive the Chinese out of any area New Delhi considered hers."
**Calvin says, "In 1959, India initiated a forward policy of sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas."
**Calvin says, "The Indian strategy in early 1962 was to move behind Chinese posts in an attempt to cut off Chinese supplies.". 
*Traing says, "The Forward Policy was having success in cutting out supply lines of Chinese troops who had advanced South of the McMahon Line"
**Calvin says, "The Indian strategy in early 1962 was to move behind Chinese posts in an attempt to cut off Chinese supplies. China's reaction any new Indian outpost, though, was usually to surround it with superior forces."
*Traing writes, "Over the following months, vehicles and prisoners of war were returned by both sides unconditionally as a show of goodwill."
**Calvin says, "The Chinese then began repatriating Indians through Bomdi La.  The sick and wounded were returned during December, 1962.  Other prisoners of war were returned over the next six months."
**Maxwell says, "Not one Chinese prisoner was taken by the Indians."
And that, boys and girls, is today's lesson in the importance of reading comprehension. It helps to actually read the sources one is allegedly citing.--Yuje 04:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said it yourself:  "The Indian strategy in early 1962 was to move behind Chinese posts in an attempt to cut off Chinese supplies.". Meanwhile, the fact that you don't allow me to write about why the Forward Policy started and wrote three times about why it continued (becasue of it's initial success) in the article. Including twice in the same paragraph, makes me feel that your motives aren't all so noble as I originally thought. Traing 01:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the books say VS what Traing says (the sequel) 

message: He writes:
:According to the official Indian history, a decision was made on September 9 to evict the Chinese from the southern part of the Thagla Ridge, by force, if necessary. Officers at the Indian Defense Ministry had expressed the concern that Indian maps showed Thag La as Chinese territory; they were told to ignore the maps. Two days later, it was decided that "all forward posts and patrols were given permission to fire on any armed Chinese who entered Indian territory". However, Nehru's directives to Defense Minister V.K. Krishna Menon were unclear, and the response, code named Operation LEGHORN, got underway only slowly. As the Chinese numbers were exaggerated to 600 instead of about 50 or 60, a battalion of 400 Punjab riflemen was sent to Dhola.
An analysis of the sources show that they are a mixture of the Indian official history and the anti-Indian history by Neville Maxwell. However they are all placed under the heading of "according to the Indian official history". Yuje says that we should attribute all comments to their authors, which I agree with, but his selectiveness seems misleading. Traing 22:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually only attribute subjective criteria, like motives or validity of claims to authors. Statements like, "Mao was afraid of this" or "Nehru wanted this" are subjective, because we can never know what they were actually thinking, and authors can only speculate or make educated guesses on them. So are things like "X country felt this way" or "X's claim was more legitimate". Simple statements of facts, such as "a battalion of 400 riflemen were sent", or "this minister said X" aren't subjective, because the numbers can actually be counted, and the statements of what someone said are recorded or written down. However, if you dispute that the facts are true, I don't mind listing the name of the source that says this.--Yuje 05:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say something relating to the Indian thought process before the war is attributed to the Indian official history, it gains much more credibility. However, you mixed Maxwell and the Indian official history claims so that a sense came about that all the things that Maxwell said were Indian official history, when in fact he presents anything but the Indian side of events. Especially when you imply that the Indian official history states "Officers at the Indian Defense Ministry had expressed the concern that Indian maps showed Thag La as Chinese territory; they were told to ignore the maps"Traing 05:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't "imply" that Indian official history stated that. The statement is clearly cited and unambiguosly cited to Maxwell. I mentioned the Indian history explicitly because that was the source of the decision. As I said, it's not a big deal, I've already added editted it to show that Maxwell says so. I don't see how it's much of a difference as what the defense ministers said are probably part of the official record and attributable to multiple sources anyhow. --Yuje 07:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yuje attempting to mislead 

message: Yuje, can you prove that "History of the Conflict with China, 1962" is the official history presented by India. As I am able to find extremely little on the history compared to what less official sources present. I would like proof that it is the official history and would appreciate some sense of verifiability. Traing 23:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Garver lists "History of the Conflict with China" as India's official history. It's author, Athale, is credited in articles as author of the official history: . Sukumaran, whom you have cited numerous times, also names it as the official Indian history. The publisher of the book itself is listed in the book as "History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India". --Yuje 05:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Official History 

message: Garver says  The next book sourced by him is published in 1998. Anyway, your simply deletion of the sentence wasn't good enough. Traing 06:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence wasn't accurate. The PLA history was published in 1994, Xu Yan's book in 1993, so it's clear that the first book allowed to be published wasn't in 1998. Garver doesn't specifically say when the first one after 1991 was published, and his claim of Sun Shao's book being first was uncertain, in any case. So the deleted sentence was inaccurate as far as the date goes, AND the author doesn't say what the actual one is. --Yuje 07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First booklength analysis 

message: http://www.india-seminar.com/2006/562/562-vk-singh.htm
RESOLVING THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE
V.K. Singh, Lt. General (retired), The Indian Army; former Director General Military Operations, Delhi 
Just an FYI for both parties.
Mikeslackenerny 07:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll take a look at it.  --Yuje 07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou. Traing 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Source 

message: ::By signing the Simla Agreement with Tibet, the British had violated the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 This strikes me rather emotional word choice. It's hardly unusual for treaties to be inconsistent with each other. An Anglo-Russian convention is a bilateral matter between Britain and Russia. It's not reasonable for China to use it to claim rights. The 1907 convention was initially a concern for British, but it was renounced by Russia in 1917 and by Russia and Britain jointly in 1921. As for the Sino-British treaty, it was renounced when China invaded Tibet in 1910. So it wasn't even an issue at the time. Kauffner 02:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you elaborate on those two points? The source I used didn't mention them. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuje (talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got it from Walt van Praag's book. Melvyn Goldstein's book has the original documents concerning Simla from the British archive. They mention only the Anglo-Russian treaty, never the Sino-British treaty. As far a source on the Web goes, you can check here: These arrangements [Simla] were in breach of the Anglo-Russian agreement of 1907, and a release to cover them was sought from Russia. This difficulty disappeared when in 1917, the Communist Government in Russia repudiated all the international engagements of the tsars, and when in 1921, the 1907 Treaty was cancelled by agreement. Kauffner 21:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Violated" treaty 

message: This article isnot neutral.The indian name Northeast Frontier Agency and chinese name South Tibet should be treated in the same way,while some contributors deliberately deleting the chinese name South Tibet in the favour of their emotion.The war broke out in the disputable area,so all the name should be cited.--Ksyrie 02:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calvin uses NEFA. Yuje even uses NEFA. Traing 06:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chinese name for the area is South Tibet and the Indian name is Arunachal. Using the British colonial name NEFA may bring up some objections, but it's perhaps a bit more NPOV than picking either other name, since the British aren't involved in the dispute anymore. As for Aksai Chin, I believe that's a Uyghur name for the area that's used by both sides. --Yuje 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NEFA was the official Indian name at the time of the war. The Indians changed the name to Arunachal later on. The British called it the North East Frontier Tract. Kauffner 04:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Northeast Frontier Agency

message: The article is getting quite long, most of the information is pre-war, can anyone suggest a good name for a subarticle. Maybe something like Leadup to the Sino-Indian War. Traing 06:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long 

message: Gawd, that sounds clumsy. I guess it would not be wrong to say just "Indian Army", as the Air Force had at best only limited support role, and the Navy none atall.
Is there an Orbat available for this conflict?
And yeah, article is too long. Please make a seperate site for the lead up. (hehe easy for me to say.. you guys have done the excellent slog work)
Mikeslackenerny 09:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Military of India" phrase in the intro 

message: Guys, anyone had a look at http://sinoindianwar.50megs.com/ ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeslackenerny (talk • contribs) 09:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are Fair Use images that can be used with a proper Fair Use rationale and explanation. I've seen that website previously and may upload the images in the future after I have time to consider the Fair Use rationale for each image. Traing 04:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources (with pics!) 

message: See huge source: http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/10-4-66.shtml
The Colombo Conference
Meanwhile at the invitation of the Government of Ceylon,
Conference of six non-aligned nations -- Ceylon, Burma,
Cambodia, Indonesia, Ghana and the UAR -- had met at Colombo on
December 10 with the purpose of seeking ways and means of
bringing the two angry giants together. The positions taken up by
each participant appear to have differed widely. Thus Mrs Sirimavo
Bandaranaike, the Prime Minister of Ceylon, referred in her
opening speech to the danger that the dispute represented for
India's policy of non-alignment and the UAR, whose strong support
for the Indian cause Pandit Nehru has gratefully acknowledged,
considered that there should be no territorial gains from military
operations. General Ne Win of Burma and Prince Sihanouk of
Cambodia, on the other hand, were chiefly resolved not to tread on
anyone's toes.
However the Conference reached agreement on certain
proposals and requested Mrs Bandaranaike to convey them in
person to New Delhi and Peking. the proposals and subsequent
clarifications made to India provided that in Ladakh China should,
as she had offered, withdraw her forces 20 kilometres behind what
he alleged to be the line of November 1959, while Indian forces
might move right up to this line; the demilitarised zone should
be administered by civilian posts of both sides. In the eastern
sector both sides might move troops right up to the McMahon line
except in the Chedong and Longju areas, where there was a
difference of opinion about the former line of control; China and
India should decide jointly what to do about these. As for the
central sector, the Conference suggested that its problems would
"be solved by peaceful means without resorting to force". These
strictly temporary arrangements were designed merely to reduce
tension and make it possible for the two sides to negotiate.
Chou En-lai informed Mrs. Bandaranaike on January 19
that China accepted the proposals "in principle", but he seemed
inclined to make important reservations. In particular he wanted
India to accept a suggestion he had previously made to Mr Nehru
on December 31, that Indian troops keep out of the NEFA, while
the Peking "People's Daily" of January 26 remarked pointedly that
there were disputes over all sectors of the boundary." It seemed
possible that China might lay serious claim not merely to parts
of Ladakh as previously, but to all or part of the NEFA, where
she had made intensive propaganda during her period of
occupation. In India the Lok Sabha accepted the proposals in toto on
January 25; but Mr Nehru said that there could be no
negotiations until China did the same.
Mikeslackenerny 10:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath: The Colombo Conference of Dec10-12 1962 

message: This chinese link puts it at 1460
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/history4/62/20050317/12174607.html
From some Chinese book called "The red walls witness"
摘自《红墙见证录》，当代中国出版社尹家民
http://product.dangdang.com/product.aspx%3Fproduct_id%3D8776496
Book can be purchased above. Was published in 2004.
Mikeslackenerny 07:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Casualties 

message: http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=zh_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fmilitary.china.com%2fzh_cn%2fhistory2%2f06%2f11027560%2f20050712%2f12476522.html
Hong Kong Wenhui Daily news: An Indian diplomacy department senior official disclosed that, the Indian government has released two in 1962 in the China and India frontier war the Chinese soldier which captures, two people are imprisoned in India for 41 years. These two have been long ago awarded the martyr the soldier, returned to the Sichuan native place.
The official said that, two respectively are 61 year old of and 65 year-old Chinese prisoners of war, for 41 years are imprisoned east India the Ranchi mental hospital. Visits China and the China and India relations along with Indian premier further fixes, the Indian government gives two people China. India's diplomats stated that, "Two people returned to the Sichuan native place, China and India had agreed the event keeps secret."
????
Mikeslackenerny 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  India had 2 Chinese PoW from '62?? 

message: I plan to add a section, or a note in the aftermath, about the Indian movie Haqeeqat (Reality), which was made in 1964 and told of the last ditch battle at Rezang La for the defence of Chulshul in Ladakh sector.
Is there any popular culture reference from China?
Mikeslackenerny 08:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1962 War in Popular Culture 

message: *China's maps showed the land between Ladakh and Bhutan as Chinese.
**what it actually says:"Maps accompanying the report showed both Aksai Chin in Ladakh and territory up to the Himalayan foothills, east of Bhutan as Chinese territory."
**This was a distortion of a source (again) to imply that China had claims to Sikkim and Nepal.
***Fixed. Traing 07:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV changes (yet again) 

message: Wow.. the article has evolved brilliantly over the past couple of months. Informative and well referenced article.. good job. --Grubb 17:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article 

message: The political map of India has a caption stating that the map shows Bhutan as part of India, when Bhutan is infact shaded a different colour to India. Can someone clarify? Traing 07:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1954 map shades Bhutan and Sikkim and the map says that the two have been attached to India by a special treaty. Look at the legend and see the difference between the lines used for international boundaries and internal boundaries. The lines used for the border with Bhutan and Sikkim (and Nepal, for that matter) don't use the international border lines that are used one the border with China and Pakistan, but uses the lines for Indian subdivisions. The 1950 map shows both as being independent countries.--Yuje 08:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: What the heck is this? The whole article just turn into an Indian propaganda piece. Many parts of the article said Indians inflicted higher casualties to the Chinese than the other way around. And it almost onesidely talk about Indian army's bravary and make the Chinese troop look stupid.
: I agree. 450w 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Find sources then which represent another line of thought over the Battle of Rezang La, or Chushul. Traing 01:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I fully agree. Just look at the write up on the Western Theatre. It is a blatant glorification of the Indian Army and details events and accounts of bravery of individual soldiers. The style of presentation makes a mockery out of this encyclopedia. BeyRel 05:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The article is just glorifying the Indian army

message: *[Text box] Deletion of who won the war. Wars do not involve armies simply moving around back and forth. Battles are fought, and one side or the other wins. Traing kept on deleting text that says that China won the war. 
*"The first heavy fighting of the war was triggered by a Chinese attack on an Indian patrol north of the McMahon Line."
**This is incredibly biased account. There was a confrontation at Thag La Ridge, which was north of the McMahon Line. Nehru ordered the soldiers to "expel the Chinese", and Operation Leghorn was launched to do just that. The Indian troops there weren't doing routine patrols, but advancing towards Chinese positions, and the group that got attacked was moving into positions to outflank the Chinese positioned at Thag La.
***According to Calvin this was the first heavy fighting of the war. Like it or not. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll probably get time over the next few days to look over and fix the changes I have told you I would fix. Traing 09:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's what's biased