“Never Again The Same” – Excerpts

Courtesy Atanu , I stumbled on this 1962 TIME Magazine story on the Indo-Chinese War of 1962. Excerpts below.

*** “Never Again the Same” ***

…After a series of smashing victories in the border war with India, Chinese troops swept down from the towering Himalayas and were poised at the edge of the fertile plains of Assam, whose jute and tea plantations account for one-fourth of India’s export trade. Then, with Assam lying defenseless before her conquering army, Red China suddenly called a halt to the fighting.

Radio Peking announced that, “on its own initiative.” Red China was ordering a cease-fire on all fronts. Further, by Dec. 1, Chinese troops would retire to positions 12½ miles behind the lines they occupied on Nov. 7. 1959.

.

…In New Delhi the government of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was taken completely by surprise. An Indian spokesman first denounced the Chinese offer as a “diabolical maneuver.” which was later amended to the comment that India would “wait and see” exactly what the Chinese were proposing. A communique confirmed that, after the cease-fire deadline, there “had been no report of firing by the Chinese aggressors.” Indian troops also stopped shooting, but Nehru warned India: “We must not imagine that the struggle will soon be over.”

On closer examination, the Chinese cease-fire proved to be a lot less mysterious. It did offer India’s battered armies a badly needed respite. But it left the Chinese armies in position to resume their offensive if Nehru refuses the Peking terms. And it puts on India the onus of continuing the war. Said the Hindustan Times: “The latest Chinese proposals are not a peace offer but an ultimatum.”

…In New Delhi illusions are dying fast….Nehru’s policy of nonalignment, which was intended to free India from any concern with the cold war between the West and Communism, was ending in disaster. Nearly shattered was the morally arrogant pose from which he had endlessly lectured the West on the need for peaceful coexistence with Communism. Above all. the Indian people, fiercely proud of their nationhood, have been deeply humiliated and shaken by the hated Chinese.

…The 73-year-old Nehru gave the impression of being swept along by this tumult, not of leading it. His agony was apparent as he rose in Parliament, three days before the Chinese cease-fire announcement, to report that the Indian army had been decisively defeated at Se Pass and Walong. The news raised a storm among the M.P.s. A Deputy from the threatened Assam state was on his feet, shaking with indignation and demanding, “What is the government going to do? Why can’t you tell us? Are we going to get both men and materials from friendly countries to fight a total war, or is the government contemplating a cease-fire and negotiations with the Chinese?”

…While the Speaker asked repeatedly for order, Nehru sat chin in hand, obviously scornful of this display of Indian excitability, his abstracted gaze fixed on nothing.

Nehru was coming close to admitting that he had at last discovered who were India’s friends…(Nehru) was shocked when, instead of helping India, Moscow denounced India’s border claims and urged Nehru to accept the Red Chinese terms.

…a U.S. mission headed by Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs Averell Harriman and U.S. Army General Paul D. Adams flew to New Delhi to confer with Indian officials on defense requirements. Soon after, Britain’s Commonwealth Secretary Duncan Sandys arrived with a similar British mission. Their most stunning discovery: after five years under Nehru’s hand-picked Defense Minister, Krishna Menon, the Indian army was lamentably short of ammunition even for its antiquated Lee Enfield rifles….

India’s catastrophic unreadiness for war stems directly from the policy of nonalignment which was devised by Nehru and implemented by his close confidant Krishna Menon. Says one Indian editor: “Nonalignment is no ideology. It is an idiosyncrasy.”

…Actually, it owes as much to Nehru’s rather oldfashioned, stereotyped, left-wing attitudes acquired during the ’20s and ’30s (“He still remembers all those New Statesmen leaders.” says one bitter critic) as it does to Gandhian notions of nonviolence. Nehru has never been able to rid himself of the disastrous cliche that holds Communism to be somehow progressive and less of a threat to emergent nations than “imperialism.”

…At the 1955 Bandung conference. Nehru and China’s Premier Chou En-lai embraced Panch Shila, a five-point formula for peaceful coexistence. The same Indian crowds that now shout. “Wipe out Chink stink!” then roared “Hindi Chini bhai bhai” (Indians and Chinese are brothers). India refused to sign the peace treaty with Japan because Red China was not a party to it. At home, Menon harped on the theme that Pakistan was India’s only enemy.

…Even the Chinese conquest of Tibet in 1951 had rung no alarm bells in New Delhi—and therein lie the real beginnings of the present war.

…When the Chinese Republic of Sun Yat-sen was born in 1912, Britain decided to look to its borders. At a three-nation meeting in Simla in 1914, Britain’s representative. Sir Arthur McMahon, determined the eastern portion of the border by drawing a line on a map along the Himalayan peaks from Bhutan to Burma. The Tibetan and Chinese delegates initialed this map, but the newborn Chinese Republic refused to ratify it, and so has every Chinese government since.

The McMahon Line was never surveyed or delimited on the ground, and British troops seldom penetrated the NEFA hill country, where such tribes as the Apatanis. the Tagins and the Hill Miris amused themselves by slave-raiding and headhunting. As recently as 1953, the Daflas wiped out a detachment of the Assam Rifles just for the fun of it.

At the western end of the border, in Ladakh. the British made even less of an effort at marking the frontier, and the border with Tibet has generally been classified as “undefined.” Red China was most interested in Ladakh’s northeastern corner, where lies the Aksai Chin plateau, empty of nearly everything but rocks, sky and silence. For centuries, a caravan route wound through the Aksai Chin (one reason the Chinese say the plateau is theirs is that Aksai Chin means “China’s Desert of White Stone”), leading from Tibet around the hump of the lofty Kunlun range to the Chinese province of Sinkiang. In 1956 and 1957 the Chinese built a paved road over the caravan trail, and so lightly did Indian border police patrol the area that New Delhi did not learn about the road until two years after it was built.

…On Oct. 25, strong Chinese patrols began penetrating the NEFA border, occupying Longju and Towang and threatening Walong. For once, Nehru was badly shaken. He said: “From time immemorial the Himalayas have provided us with a magnificent frontier. We cannot allow that barrier to be penetrated because it is also the principal barrier to India.” But the barrier was being daily penetrated. Ten months ago, Nehru appointed Lieut. General Brij Kaul, 50, to command the NEFA area. Then, without consulting any of his military men, Nehru publicly ordered Kaul to drive out the Chinese invaders of NEFA.

The opposing armies were of unequal size, skill and equipment.

…Before Kaul had a chance to try and “clear out” the Chinese in NEFA, the Chinese struck first on Oct. 20. Some 20,000 burp-gun-toting infantry stormed over Thag La ridge and swept away a 5,000-man Indian brigade strung out along the Kechilang River. The surprise was complete, and dazed survivors of the Chinese attack struggled over the pathless mountains, where hundreds died of exposure. In Ladakh the Chinese scored an even bigger victory, occupying the entire 14,000 square miles that Peking claims is Chinese territory.

While the Indians worked to build up a new defense line at Walong and in the lofty Se Pass, reinforcements were hurried to Assam. The effort to bring up men and supplies from the plains was backbreaking. TIME Correspondent Edward Behr made the trip over a Jeep path that was like a roller coaster 70 miles long and nearly three miles high. He reports: “The Jeep path begins at Tezpur, amid groves of banana and banyan trees, then climbs steeply upward through forests of oak and pine to a 10,000-ft. summit. Here the path plunges dizzily downward to the supply base of Bomdi La on a 5,000-ft. plateau, and then zigzags skyward again to the mist-hung Se Pass at 13,556 ft. Above the hairpin turns of the road rise sheer rock walls; below lie bottomless chasms. Rain and snow come without warning, turning the path to slippery mud. Even under the best conditions, a Jeep takes 18 hours to cover the 70 miles.

“At this height, icy winds sweep down from the snow crests of the Himalayas, and if a man makes the slightest exertion, his lungs feel as if they are bursting. Newcomers suffer from the nausea and lightheadedness of mountain sickness. Every item of supply, except water, must be brought up the roller coaster from the plains. There are few bits of earth flat enough for an airstrip, and helicopters have trouble navigating in the thin air.”

…After three weeks, Kaul felt emboldened to make a probing attack on the Chinese lines. Following an artillery barrage, 1,000 Indian jawans (G.I.s) drove the Chinese from the lower slopes of a hill near Walong. It was a costly victory, for the Chinese launched a massive counterattack through and around Walong, driving the Indians 80 miles down the Luhit valley. At Se Pass, the Chinese victory was even more spectacular…

Panic spread from the mountains into the plains. Officials in Tezpur burned their files, and bank managers even set fire to stacks of banknotes…Indian army headquarters was hastily moved from Tezpur to Gauhati, 100 miles to the southwest. Officers and men who had escaped from the fighting referred dazedly to the Chinese as swarming everywhere “like red ants.”

…Though India—like the U.S. after Pearl Harbor—could not yet afford scapegoats and recrimination, Defense Minister Krishna Menon was almost universally blamed for the inadequacy of Indian arms, the lack of equipment and even winter clothing. His fall from grace not only finished his own career but brought a turning point in Nehru’s. The Prime Minister had tried to pacify critics by taking over the Defense Ministry and downgrading Menon to Minister of Defense Production, but Nehru’s own supporters demanded Menon’s complete dismissal.

On Nov. 7, Nehru attended an all-day meeting of the Executive Committee of the parliamentary Congress Party and made a final plea for Menon, whose intellect, he said, was needed in the crisis.

As a participant recalls it, ten clenched fists banged down on the table, a chorus of voices shouted, “No!”

Nehru was dumfounded. It was he who was used to banging tables and making peremptory refusals. Taking a different tack, he accurately said that he was as much at fault as Menon and vaguely threatened to resign. Always before, such a threat had been sufficient to make the opposition crumble with piteous cries of ‘Panditji, don’t leave us alone!” This time, one of the leaders said: “If you continue to follow Menon’s policies, we are prepared to contemplate that possibility.” Nehru was beaten and Menon thrown out of the Cabinet.

…There is still considerable dispute over how little or how much the Chinese were after in their attack on India.

…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.

…by in effect quitting while they are ahead, the Chinese can play the peacemakers in the short-sighted eyes of the neutral nations, while having dramatically demonstrated their military superiority over India and without having to abandon the long-range threat.

…And Nehru must know that the situation has reached a point where he can never again trust a Red Chinese promise and that the relationship between India and China has changed irrevocably. His policy of nonalignment has not been jettisoned. It has just ceased to have any meaning.

…But though India moves at a different pace and speaks with a different voice few could doubt last week the Indian determination to see that the Himalayan defeats were avenged, however long it may take.

*** End of Excerpts ***

Sadly, the “determination to see that the Himalayan defeats were avenged” seems to be something we have forgotten.

How else does one explain the Defence Minister’s bland explanation regarding Chinese incursions? or the meek acceptance of backtracking by Chinese government on border agreements? or the government’s silence over Chinese attempts at cartographic aggression? or the unbelievable-but true attempts at blocking Chinese incursions by forming human chains? or the incredibly naive (and ineffective) attempts at thwarting further claims on our territory? or the huge reluctance to admit that India and China are strategic rivals?

Too many uncomfortable questions…but few in New Delhi are loosing sleep over this…

China? You must be joking…We have a bigger problem on our hands….and more important matters to attend to.

Have a peaceful weekend (if you can).

P.S. If anyone of you read (or heard) the word “China” in any news-reports about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit, pl. leave a comment below with the relevant link. Thanks.

Related Post: “China: Will India repeat the mistakes of 1962?” – Excerpts

B Shantanu

Political Activist, Blogger, Advisor to start-ups, Seed investor. One time VC and ex-Diplomat. Failed mushroom farmer; ex Radio Jockey. Currently involved in Reclaiming India - One Step at a Time.

You may also like...

18 Responses

  1. Sanjay Anandaram says:

    Shantanu,

    This was great reading given that the details of the China War of 1962 are still classified in India. Obviously, we’ve not learned anything. The July 20th issue of India Today has a shameful article titled India Unprepared by Sandeep Unnithan details the pathetic state of affairs months after 26/11.

    Also,In a landmark paper titled, Developing India’s Foreign Policy “Software,” Daniel Markey, Senior Fellow for South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations, “outlines significant shortcomings in India’s foreign policy institutions that undermine the country’s capacity for ambitious and effective international action, and proposes steps that both New Delhi and Washington should take, assuming they aim to promote India’s rise as a great power.”

    The paper goes on to say:

    India’s own foreign policy establishment hinders the country from achieving great-power status for four main reasons:

    (1) The Indian Foreign Service is small, hobbled by its selection process and inadequate midcareer training, and tends not to make use of outside expertise;

    (2) India’s think-tanks lack sufficient access to the information or resources required to conduct high-quality, policy-relevant scholarship;

    (3) India’s public universities are poorly funded, highly regulated, and fail to provide world-class education in the social sciences and other fields related to foreign policy; and

    (4) India’s media and private firms—leaders in debating the country’s foreign policy agenda—are not built to undertake sustained foreign policy research or training.

    For India to achieve great-power status, a number of improvements to its foreign policy software will be required:

    • expand, reform, pay, and train the Indian Foreign Service to attract and retain high-caliber officers

    • encourage the growth of world-class social science research and teaching schools in India through partnerships with private Indian and U.S. investors, universities, and foundations

    • invest in Indian think-tanks and U.S.-India exchange programs that build capacity for foreign policy research

    • bring non-career officers into the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and other parts of the foreign policy establishment as term-limited fellows to improve outside understanding of the policy process

    • support the efforts of Indian researchers to maximize public access to material related to the history of India’s foreign policy by way of the 2005 Right to Information Act.

  2. Patriot says:

    Thanks, Shantanu, for this post – I had to stop reading multiple times, shaken by anguish and anger.

    The Indian Express had this editorial recently on this same issue:
    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/keeping-secrets/491016/

    We, the people of India, need to demand greater transparency from our government, the leviathan that we have to control.

  3. Patriot says:

    The other thing that people of India should remember is the role of the Indian communist parties – the blood traitors.

    The Communist Party of India supported the position of China in this war.

    The Communist Part of India (Marxist) censured and punished Achutanandan for daring to suggest that the CPM workers (who had been jailed in Kerala, including Achutanandan) should organise a blood drive to support the Indian Army.

  4. B Shantanu says:

    @ Sanjay: Thanks…and also for raising some very interesting points. I will attempt a response.

    (1) The Indian Foreign Service is small, hobbled by its selection process and inadequate mid-career training, and tends not to make use of outside expertise – Largely true (it is not just small, it is hopelessly inadequate in numbers and ill-equipped). Also on issues of critical/national importance (such as China, Pakistan), the political class influences policy as much as (if not more) than South Block. Needless to say, this does not always serve our national interest.

    Agree with points about Think-Tanks and Universities. We are now paying the price for lack of funding and systematic and sustained undermining of independent academic research and scholarship.

    Bringing outside experts into South Block will help hugely. But I would be very surprised if this happens anytime soon (within the next 10 years).

    ***

    @ Patriot: Thanks for the link to the IE Op-Ed…and for highlighting the treachery of the communists…I should try and find a link to the episode you mentioned (if you have it, can you please post it here?).

  5. Dirt Digger says:

    @Patriot,
    Great points. In any other country these traitors would have been banned and their supporters sent to prison for treason.
    Only in India these traitors have been given 2 states to rule!
    People’s memories are indeed short.
    Though the people (RSS) who helped organize fund raising to support the Army are forgotten.

  6. RR says:

    Pl. click here for Capt. Bharat Verma’s recent column re. a possible Chinese attack on India before 2012 and the Chinese response to it

  7. Rohit says:

    Not right to shift the blame from Nehru to Communist parties.

    The then army leader Kaul (without any combat experience) was handpicked and promoted by Nehru. Nehru had ignored genuine needs (Clothing, Shoes, Food, Equipments + Supply of Ammunition)of defence to fight in war in cold and mountaneous terrains. This war has history of records. Chinese were extremely apprehensive about Indian army which had a glorious experience of fighting wars (successfully) in most difficult terrrains around the world in WW1 & WW2 but the same Indian army was defeated heavily. Beauraucracy and Nehru led the war from back stage and sacrificied soldiers and when defeat was evident walked away uttering helplessness to offer advice to military. No Chinese Soilder could be captured by Indian soldiers. Indian soilders died by both weather and chinese ammo but no record of death due to weather conditons has been published. The war cries were more uttered by Indian media and Nehru than Chinese. The fact is that governent has not yet published the official investigation report even though US has released CIA papers and China has released their calssified papers.

    US papers to summarize are filled with odour of US views on China and comunism and blame communists while also blaming Nehru. Neville Maxwell also wrote a book on same which is acepted by defense analysts as well balanced account of events that led to Indo China war. If you read the former (CIA) version, comunists are evil + Nehru foolishness is to be blamed… If you read latter version (Neville Maxwell) Nehru is to be blamed. The latter provides more indepth and reasoned analysis while CIA version is heavily laed with America’s perception of communism.

    The after math of the war is even more interesting and ironical especially for sickular congressis and rest of Indians

  8. Patriot says:

    This article refers to the CPM punishing Achuthanandan for organising the blood drive – but, I remember reading a much bigger article on this somewhere – will try to get hold of it.

    cheers

  9. Patriot says:

    Ah, here is the original recap: During China war, comrades cracked down on VS for saying let’s give blood to jawans

  10. Dirt Digger says:

    @Patriot,
    Apparently the Indian express writer has more sympathy for CPM than VS.

    ” In 1962, he organised a blood donation campaign for Indian soldiers during the Indo-China war, a move that put him at odds with his party. What then appeared as a callow, youthful streak of defiance continued to surface through Achuthanandan’s political life and is now interpreted as a codgerish, doctrinaire refusal to modulate his responses to his party’s context.

    Donating blood for soldiers is deemed “callow” and “youthful streak of defiance”. Wow only in India.
    I hope the editor read this and fired the reporter.

  11. Patriot says:

    @ DD –

    Right on. I hope so, too.

    Although, the Indian Express, in general, in editorial comment, takes a very strong anti-communist line.

  12. B Shantanu says:

    A short excerpt from Learn from past, focus on China by Swapan Dasgupta:

    …That Xinjiang or East Turkestan (as it is called by Uighur nationalists) has long and profound links with India has been conveniently forgotten. Yet, as late as 1951, India had its own consulate in Kashgar, the trading hub of Xinjiang, an arrangement that dated back to 1890. The occupant of Chini-Bagh (renamed India House in 1947 but now known by its original name) in Kashgar was drawn from the Indian Political Service and received instructions, not from Whitehall but from the Viceroy’s council. Indeed, before he was accorded full diplomatic recognition by the Chinese government in 1904, Sir George Macartney’s official position was special assistant for Chinese affairs to the resident in Kashmir — a pointer to the fact Xinjiang had everything to do with India.

    …It was the wooliness of Nehru and the gullibility of K N Panikkar, India’s first ambassador to China, which allowed Zhou Enlai to sweet-talk India into closing its consulates in both Kashgar and Lhasa in Tibet. Zhou gave a verbal assurance that Indian interests will be looked after by a friendly China. The closure was the precursor to the stealthy construction of the Karakoram highway linking Xinjiang and Tibet and the formal occupation of Aksai Chin in 1962. India suffered humiliation because it was too trusting and had abandoned its geo-political responsibilities.

  13. B Shantanu says:

    Daniel Markey’s paper (referred to in Sanjay’c comment @ #1) can be downloaded here: “Developing India’s Foreign Policy Software”

  14. Kiran says:

    Nehru was the worst choice during early 60s & late 50s to be the PM of India. He was an ideologist, not strategist when it comes to country’s interest.

    Clearly he was backstabbed by China with some help from Krishna Menon.

    India is still paying the price for putting a guy who put ideals above selfish interests of the country. Him focusing on Korea & not Tibet was one problem. Him blindly believing in Panch Sheela & Hindi/Chini Bhai Bhai was worse.

    I have heard from my Assamese friend how ‘Good bye Assam’ Nehru speech unnerved them. How could any PM of any country give such a speech?

    In short, we need to make a movie on his Himalayan Blunders. Name it ‘Jokerlal in Blunderland’ 🙁

  15. ABC says:

    *** COMMENTS COMBINED ***

    Sri Bhagwat, Padma Vibhushan VK Krishna Menon was a great visionary and great patriot. Krishna Menon not providing weapons is nonsense. IAF Chiefs Tipnis and NAK Browne recently claimed IAF was stronger than PLAF. How did IAF get flights and weapons if Menon (defense min since 1957) did not buy them? WHy would Menon not give money to army when he gave it Air Force? Whose job is it to ensure soldiers have winter clothing? Who was the last viceroy, PM or Defense Minister that went around the bases to check canteens for vardi ka kapda? It was incompetence of generals to captains. How ignorant is to criticize Menon or Nehru? Indians not only universally blamed low-caste South Indian Menon but cheered when China launched attack. They finally found someone who could bring mighty lion Jawaharlal Nehru to his knees. On November 7th, with Chinese still in Arunachal and threatened advance, politicians including Congress were more interested in ousting Menon than ousting Chinese. In any decent nation such politics waits until after war. Such are the low-life Indians.

    Defense Minister and later President R. Venkataraman praised Menon’s pioneering contributions towards modernizing Indian Armed Forces. RV credited military’s remarkable performance in 1965 and 1971 wars to Krishna Menon’s vision. Air Chief Marshals NAK Browne and AY Tipnis recently claimed IAF in fact was better equipped than PLAF. The Mig-21, Hunter, Sabre etc that proved vital in 1965 were negotiated by Menon. DRDO which produced missiles etc that India is so proud of was founded in 1958 under Menon. Menon also started indegeniation program and opened 15 new ordinance factories. Inspite folklore of Menon making coffee perculators in existing factories, ordinance production increased 500% under Menon. First aircraft carrier INS Vikrant was commissioned under Krishna Menon. Menon secured UN grant for ISRO at Thumba. Menon was instrumental in expanding HAL, BEL among others. Menon revitalized NCC and started Sainik Schools. But blaming Nehru/Menon for not buying equipment equal to that of China is equally stupid. China had to starve 45 million Chinese to death. Nehru kept the status-quo with just 5,000 deaths.

    When I was young child, an uncle of mine used to pull on my nose and declare he took away my nose. I would start crying. Here is moment of good news when China declared cease-fire and withdrawl and you saying ‘never again’? Did any educated, out-of-box thinking intellectuals ever bother to ask why what unilateral ceasefire and withdrawal means? It means CHINA RANAWAY and you’re saying NEVR AGAIN? China lost millions of people yet moved on. Indians still cry over 4,000 deaths 50 years ago. Nehru/Menon even Timmayya understood Indians have stomach for war. But people like Sardar Patel instigated press and people to force Nehru government to advance. When hell broke loose, everybody pretends ignorance. Some even flash letter that make no sense to blame Nehru/Menon. I have an idea. If withdrawing is such an insult to other side, let us withdraw from Kashmir! That will humiliate and teach a lesson to Pakistan for generations to come!

  16. B Shantanu says:

    Placing these links & excerpts here for the record:

    From SOME COUNTRIES JUST CANNOT BE TRUSTED by Claude Arpi, 09 May 2013


    Even if the troops’ withdrawal remains shrouded in vagueness, it is important to take an initial trial balance of the incident in the High Himalayas. A first point to be noticed: New Delhi was taken by surprise; was not ready to tackle the situation, whether militarily or even diplomatically.

    There is no doubt that the terrain favours China; after months of being posted in Western Tibet, Chinese jawans and officers are usually well acclimatised and it is relatively easy for them to go on an outing, like at Daulat Beg Oldi.

    In his memoirs, Colonel Chewang Rinchen, the brave Ladakhi soldier who was twice awarded the Maha Vir Chakra (in 1948 and 1971) for his exploits in the region, recounts: “The entire area between Murgo, which is known as ‘Gateway to Hell’, and DBO is notorious for treacherous weather and snow blizzards. …After crossing Saser La, we proceeded towards DBO. On the way, we came across skeletons of human beings and animals lying scattered all along the track.” Interestingly, he added, “On September 3, 1961, I proceeded with a patrol party, along the Chip Chap river… I noted the hoof marks of camels and horses and, a little further, tyre marks of a three-ton vehicle. It clearly indicated the possible presence of the Chinese in that area.”

    While the toughest soldiers of the Indian Army took more than a week to reached DBO, the Chinese could drive in a three-tonner! And that was in 1961. The topography and the difficulty to survive in the area was obviously known to the Indian Army and intelligence agencies, but they did not envisage that the Chinese would plant tents in what Beijing considers to be its side of the Line of Actual Control.

    From the Chinese side, everything seemed to have been programmed to the minutest details, including the ‘withdrawal’ — if withdrawal it really is.


    Now, what has China gained from its DBO excursion? Many theories have been propounded: Some say that the Chinese leadership wanted to show its displeasure on the new proximity between New Delhi and Tokyo. But such Himalayan happenings are bound to draw the US, Japan and India closer, not the other way around.

    What about China’s displeasure at the infrastructure that India has been building on this side of the LAC? Was it worth this drama? Was it not possible to discuss this issue at the already scheduled ministerial meets? ‘Experts’ will argue that according to the Art of War, it is the Chinese way to get what they want. This is not certain, because the issue has serious negative collaterals for Beijing. This incident, even if it has been ‘successfully’ resolved by both diplomacies, will remain for years a scar on the Sino-Indian relations which had just started to look up.

    And from WE COULD BE GIVING UP TOO MUCH FOR TOO LITTLE by G Parthasarathy, 10 May 2013:
    Apologists for the Chinese have said the problem exists because the Line of Actual Control has not been determined. What they fail to mention is that Beijing has refused to exchange maps that define the LAC


    Union Minister for External Affairs Salman Khurshid had, after all, labelled the Chinese intrusion in Depsang, as “acne”. The Prime Minister had described the intrusion as a “localised problem”. Government spokespersons and sympathetic hacks have claimed that hundreds of such intrusions occur every year. They refuse to accept that, while routine intrusions involve troops moving in and out of contested areas, in the present case, the intruders had pitched tents and contested Indian sovereignty. Apologists for the Chinese assert the problem arises because the Line of Actual Control arising from the 1962 conflict has not been determined. What they fail to mention is that it is the Chinese who have refused to exchange maps defining the LAC, in order to enable them to intrude at a time and place of their choosing.


    In the western sector in Ladakh, going by India’s definition of the LAC, the areas China intruded in Depsang are clearly on the Indian side of the Ladakh-Tibet border. The Macdonald-Macartney proposals, which China implicitly endorsed in 1899, were based on “well defined and easily identifiable geographical features”. India’s delineation of the LAC broadly conforms to the Macdonald-Macartney Line, which was tacitly accepted by China. The Ladakh-China border was then determined as lying along the Karakoram Mountains, up to the Indus River Watershed. Chinese official maps issued in 1853, 1917 and 1919 depicted the Ladakh-Tibet border accordingly. China has thus to accept this Indian definition of the LAC, as it has agreed that the boundary should be along “well- defined and easily identifiable natural geographical features”. What has transpired is not merely “acne”, but a violation of India’s territorial integrity.

    New Delhi has been so pusillanimous that it deliberately chooses not to articulate how China has refused to agree to the exchange of maps for determining the LAC and how it has gone back on the framework for a border settlement that Prime Minister Wen Jiabao agreed to in 2005.

    …The sudden decision on the latest infiltration, made public in the late hours of May 5 that both sides will withdraw from the positions assumed after the Chinese pitched tents in the Depsang area, raises more questions than it answers. As already explained, the area in question has been historically on India’s side of the Ladakh-Tibet border. By agreeing to a mutual pull-back from existing positions, has India not conceded that the area in question is disputed? Have we not put ourselves in a position of being unable to re-establish our presence in an area which is indisputably ours? If this is indeed the case, what is the status of the Indian presence in nearby Daulat Beg Oldi itself? Could the Chinese now not undertake a similar intrusion around Daulat Beg Oldi and demand our removal of the strategic airlift capabilities there? Have we tacitly agreed to quietly pull back from strategic positions of concern to China in Chumar and other areas?..

  17. B Shantanu says:

    From MYTH THAT MUST BE BUSTED AT EARLIEST by Claude Arpi, 10 April 2014:

    …It is necessary to come back to the Henderson-Brooks-Bhagat Report and the role played by Neville Maxwell. The Australian journalist, who recently ‘released’ the famous report by posting it on his website, has been propagating a wrong interpretation of history, that India attacked China in 1962. Even presuming that Indian troops may have crossed what the Chinese perceived as the international border, many other factors have to be taken into consideration.

    At age 87, why Maxwell remains a great advocate of China’s theory that India was the aggressor, is a mystery to me. It is not that I have any doubt that Nehru committed blunder after blunder, but Maxwell’s version is truly a biased over-simplification of the facts.

    Reading the HBBR does not show that India forced a war on China, it just proves that India was not prepared to successfully defend some new forward positions ordered by Krishna Menon (and Nehru) in North-East Frontier Agency and Ladakh. It is undoubtedly a Himalayan blunder in itself; it demonstrates the foolishness of the Prime Minister (and his arrogant Defence Minister), but it was certainly not the root-cause of the War. The ‘forward policy’ was, however, the ideal pretext for Mao Tse-tung to show that India could not go unpunished for insulting China by giving refuge to the Dalai Lama and his followers.

    The question of how India could attack without arms, ammunitions, clothing, food or basic supplies is not explained. The HBBR even says that some Indian troops starved for days.

    However, many other factors came into play, but first and foremost the flight of the Dalai Lama in March/April 1959 and his subsequent asylum in India, changed the rapport between India and China. This is an aspect that Maxwell has totally ignored. China has been aggressive from the day it entered Tibet in October 1950. Let us not forget that China had no border with India till that time. When Nehru acquiesced to the annexation of Tibet, it was a far more serious blunder than the so-called Forward Policy.

    Another blunder of Nehru was to have ‘discovered’ the Aksai Chin road, linking Tibet to Xinjiang, only in 1958 even though it was officially opened to traffic in 1957 and the construction had started several years earlier. Further, Maxwell conveniently forgets that at the end of the 1950s and the early 1960s, Tibet was on the boil, particularly eastern Tibet, north of the McMahon Line. The 70,000 character petition from the Panchen Lama to Zhou on the internal situation in Tibet demonstrates the atrocious suffering of the Tibetan people during the period.

    A few weeks back, while working in the National Archives of India, I came across interesting reports from the Indian Trade Agent in Yatung (Tibet). The Chinese authorities were harassing local Tibetans. For example, they were told that, “[They] should offer scarves to the photograph of Mao Tse-tung which will be displayed in the bazaar. It is no use to worship images in the monasteries which are of no use. Some images from the local monastery were thrown in the latrine or trampled down under their feet in the presence of the gathering.” They were also ordered: “From now onwards, nobody should utter any Hindi word and they should not speak of [to] India Office [Trade Agency] in any matter. They should address Indian merchants here as ‘dogs’.’

    By attacking India, China could effectively and ruthlessly seal the Tibet border and stop the Tibetans taking refuge in India.

    Another factor forgotten in Maxwell’s simplistic approach is the internal power struggle in China. The war was a plank for Chairman Mao to return to power. In Volume III of his Origins of the Cultural Revolution, US scholar Roderick MacFarquhar says, “It is not difficult to understand why Mao launched this sudden [internal] counter-attack [during the 10th Plenum in September 1962]. He was faced with what he saw as fundamental and unacceptable changes in key areas of policy: A rolling back of collectivisation in the countryside which would have undermined his whole vision for a socially transformed China; and a détente with the Soviet Union.” But here too, Maxwell only sees the Chinese side of the coin; it explains why he was so lavishly praised by Zhou….