1962 war India China war

1962 Conflict

In June 1962, the Indian army had established a forward post in Namka Chu river and named that post as Dhola. This is despite the fact that this post on South Bank of Namka Chu river was in Che Jong area of Gina, while Dhola was a mountain near the post. China objected to the post saying that the post is North of McMahon Line inside China and India has no right in this area. India insisted that the post was in proper Dhola region only and not in China.

As the Chinese objected, the GOC of army in the area suggested that the post be relocated to Thagala Ridge. By the time Army HQ granted the permission, Chinese established the post in Thagala Ridge. The Chinese were surprised to see violation of 1959 idea of not patrolling and establishing posts by India. On 13 September 1962, Chinese troops made an announcement from other side of Namka Chu river that India retreat from the post. As India ignored the advice, on 20 September 1962, Chinese dropped a grenade to attack the Indian post. The grenade was thrown by China to compel India to subdue and withdraw by inculcating a sense of fear. The government decided to respond to the grenade attack by deciding to evict China from Namka Chu. The Indian side sent a patrol team on 9 October 1962 near Namka Chu. 

As the patrol team reached close, China vehemently fired back on India. The entire dream and assumption of forward policy collapsed. Nehru was in Colombo and from there he addressed the press asserting that India has ordered the army to evict the Chinese from Namka Chu. This was perceived to be aggressive by China. Has decided to teach a painful military lesson to India. On 20 October 1962, Chinese attacked from Namka Chu and almost reached Tezpur, Bomdila and Tawang. The Chinese launched attacks on Western front at Galwan post bear Daulat Beg Oldi. On 24 October 1962, Zhou Enlai told Nehru to settle the border peacefully. He urged that till the time both parties do not settle the border peacefully, neither of the sides should undertake patrolling up to 20 km of LAC. 

The term LAC was used for the first time by China here. Zhou Enlai asserted that LAC meant the customary line in Western and Central sectors and Eastern Line under McMahon Line. Nehru insisted that China goes back to its position of 8 September 1962- the position where it was before it had occupied Namka Chu post by crossing the river. Zhou rejected this. The Chinese by November 1962 almost reached Sela pass, Tawang and were not far from Tezpur. India asked the US to help. President Kennedy dispatched an aircraft carrier to Bay of Bengal and squadrons of the US air force were dispatched. The Chinese on 21 November 1962 declared a unilateral ceasefire and retreated to 20 km of the LAC. China did not demand Indian retreat but asserted that China may strike back if India fires in China. Nehru did not impede the implementation of the ceasefire and the conflict came to an end. The forward policy of India met with the counter-forward policy of China led to the end of the conflict.

India - China border tension

India- China Border Issues

Let us to understand the border issue

Tibetans

They poferred to stay in isolation and they had different beliefs from Han Chinese. The spiritual head of Tibetans is Dalai Lama and he is also called as the political head. Tibetans have never owed any allegiance to rulers of China unlike rulers of Korea and Vietnam. In 1717, there were Dzungar tribesmen who invaded Tibet and this upset China China responded to this invasion by sending a military governor in Lhasa called as Ambans in 1728. The Chinese posted commissioners called Ambans in eighteenth century. 

The Chinese instructed the Tibetans to respect Ambans in Lhasa. But China neither annexed Tibet nor did it allow its independence. In 1614, Qing dynasty came to power and prior to Qing dynasty the political status of debit was not clear. After the Amban rule, Tibet-China had a priest-patron relation, In 17 China and Tibet rule got transformed as China issued a 29-point decree to Ambans that Ambans powers equivalent to Dalai Lama. gave Chinese Jahns

Eastern Sector

In 1769, there was a conflict in Nepal between Newars and Gurkhas. The British supported Newars (Hindus) against Gurkhas. Gurkhas defeated Newars and established Hindu kingdom. The year of 1814 saw an Anglo-Nepal war and British won the war by defeating the Gurkhas. The British concluded Treaty of Sagauli and gained access to Tibet via Kumaon and Garhwal. Since 1775, Gurkhas were attacking Sikkimese people. In 1817, after British defeated Gurkhas in 1814, the British signed Treaty of Titalia with Sikkim in 1817. As per the treaty, Sikkim enjoyed British protection and Sikkim became a trade route to Lhasa. The treaty also gave British a platform in Sikkim to watch Gurkhas. The Treaty of Titalia was replaced in 1861 and gave British larger say in Sikkim.

The Region of Assam

Assam was under an Ahom kingdom and it became weak by 1820s. Burma saw a weak Ahom rule as an opportunity to expand to Assam. The British decided to check Burma and as a result in 1824 Anglo-Burma war took place. Burma got defeated in Anglo-Burma war in 1824. In 1826 Burma and British concluded a peace Treaty in Yandabo, As per the treaty, British got Assam under their control. The British in Assam saw a bright spot in oil and tea plantations. When British resorted to tea plantation it led to their conflict with tribes of Assam.

Assam had also given British and easier access to Tibet for trade via Lohit valley region. But accessing Tibet was becoming problematic due to tribals coming in as obstructionist. So British decided to create inner-line and outer-line permit system with tribals. The inner and outer-line permits ensured easy trade. The region of Arunachal or Tawang was under the control of Monpas of Tawang. The Monpas of the Town ethnically different people from Tibetan and are non-Tibetans.

Kashmir

With Treaty of Lahore, the British they got access to Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmir, which were to be managed by Gulab Singh. In 1845-46 there was an Anglo-Sikh war and British won it. The British won the position of Kashmir from Sikhs. The British did not directly control Kashmir. The British entered into a Treaty of Amritsar with Gulab Singh and told Gulab Singh to administer Kashmir. 

Under the treaty, the British transferred the region east of Indus and eastern boundary hills to Gulab Singh but told him that the British will carry out survey and then define to Gulab Singh the purpose of this transfer. So under the Treaty of Amritsar, British accepted that the boundary on the east was not defined. The reason why the British maintained unambiguous boundary in the east was because it never wanted to upset China. China always maintained that there was no need for a boundary in the east because since ancient times, the Karakorum acted as a natural border. So under the Treaty of Lahore, Gulab Singh was to manage Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and under the Treaty of Amritsar Gulab Singh was not to alter boundaries and maintain balance of power.

 Check recent China standoff in Ladakh full Explained

Johnson Line

 On the east of the Chinese border existed a territory called Kashgar Kashgar region was underthe control of China. In 1864, the local ruler of Kashgar. Yakub Beg, rebelled against China. After he rebelled, Yakub Beg established the kingdom of Kashgar. During Yakub Beg's rebellion, Gulab Singh forces had helped Yakub Beg against China. In return for his help, Gulab Singh built a fort in Kashgar. Now under Treaty of Amritsar, British had told that they would carry a survey to east. So in 1865, Johnson carried out a survey of the east region as mandated under Treaty of Amritsar. Johnson published the map and in that map he showed the areas from Shahidullah, Aksai Chin to Kunlun as part of Kashmir. 

The Johnson Line map was published in 1868 and when it was published, the world got to know about this area of Aksai Chin for the first time. Johnson showed Aksai Chin region as a part of Kashmir because this region was under Yakub Beg and when Yakub Beg had rebelled against China to establish Kashgar province, Gulab Singh had assisted Yakub Beg and also built fort in that area. So, Johnson thought Aksai Chin area belongs to Kashmir. In 1868, by Johnson Line is published, the then surveyor General Colonel Walker rejected the fact that Aksai Chin belongs to Gulab Singh as depicted by Johnson. One thing to remember is that it is the same Johnson Line which is used by India since 1947 to claim Aksai Chin as a part of India. However, most of the Chinese maps at that time had shown Aksai Chin as part of China. This is why when Johnson Line is published, Walker rejected to accept Aksai Chin shown as a territory of Gulab Singh. 

McCartney-MacDonald Line and Ardagh Line

In 1877, the Chinese army captured Kashgar and defeated Yakub Beg and renamed Kashgar as Xinjiang. The British feared Russian advancement from Central Asia to North Kashmir, which would act as threat to imperial Security. To check Russian advances, the British had to watch Kashmir where two important regions were Hunza valley and Gilgit region. So in 1892, the British established the military post in Gilgit and acquired control of Hunza and Nagar.

China had been making claims over Hunza. The ruler of Hunza to was tilted towards China. The British did not like this. In 1896, John Ardagh proposed a line. This line was a strategic adoption of Johnson Line (1865). The line proposed a boundary in the crust of Kunlun and incorporated Karakash and Yarkand river areas. To check Russian advancement, the British wanted a solution. They decided to bury Johnson Line and John Ardagh Line and decided to propose a new solution.

The British minister in pecking Sir Claude McDonald proposed to British minister in Kashgar Charles McCartney in 1899 to finally solve the Kashmir-China boundary. The British wanted that China renounce their claim over Hunza. As most of the Chinese map showed Aksai Chin as part of China, the British decided to do a trade-off. In 1899, McCartney-McDonald Line is proposed. The proposal was that China relinquishes its claim over Hunza and take Aksai Chin. This line had the potential to resolve the issue The proposal was sent to Peking but Peking remained silent on the same and didn't respond. The British continue their control over Hunza and status of Aksai Chin since Johnson Line remained unclear.

History of Tibet : British Expedition | Military Stories

History of Tibet

In 1890, British and Chinese signed a trade treaty to do trade via Sikkim-Tibet border. The treat did not include the Tibetans, The Tibetans became upset and decided to protest. They destroyed the set up by the Britishers. The Tibetans were upset that a trade treaty could not be signed by British and China to do trade via Tibet without the Tibetans involved.

The British and Chinese did not pay any importance to demand of the Tibetans. In 1893, the British and Chinese now signed a convention to do trade via Chumbi Valley, This again upset the Tibetans as Tibetan were again not involved. The then Dalai Lama Thubten Gyatso now began to realise that Tibet will need third party support. Thubten Gyatso's advisor was Agvan Dorzhiev Dorzhiev was a Khori-Buryar mongol of a teacher of Gyatso also. He guided Gyatso to seek help of Russia. 

From 1898 to 1901, Thubten and his men regularly visited Russia and Dorzhiev acted as a mediator. In 1899, Lord Curzon became the next viceroy and replaced Lord Elgin Curzon had hatred for Russians. Lord Curzon sent mission to Lhasa. He wanted to inform through the mission to the Dalai Lama to respect the 1893 convention. The mission was led by Younghusband. The mission of Young husband reached Lhasa in 1904. The moment the mission reached there. Thubten and Dorzhiev fled to Lhasa and Tibet again came under the control of Ambans. As Ambans controlled Tibet again, China again became supreme in Tibet. Younghusband mis directly dealt with the Ambans.

A new treaty was concluded between British and China on Tibet.

As per the treaty:

• Tibet will no longer enter into third party treaties including with China without permission of British.

• British will get access to all trading posts in the region. • A British agent will be station in South Tibet.

The British concluded the treaty with Ambans. As visible in the treaty, the British did not make Tibet a British protectorate nor fully established their presence in Tibet but allowed China to continue a low-level administrative presence in Tibet through Ambans. Thus, the 1904 Lhasa convention ensure that the Tibet becomes a buffer between China and British India. Taking advantage of 1904 Lhasa convention, the Chinese proposed that there be a new convention. In 1906, China proposed the new convention asserting that British accept that neither would they interfere in Tibet nor will they annex Tibet. The British agreed. This was now followed in 1907 Anglo Russian convention where both Britain and Russia agreed not to negotiate with the Tibet without the presence of China. In 1909  Dalai Lama tried to come back to Tibet but at China had already taken over the control of the Tibet, Dalai Lama fled to India in 1909.

Cyber war | what is cyber warefare| cyberspace

Cyber warfare

Actions by a nation-state actor to attack and attempt to damage another nation's computers or critical infrastructure is known as cyber warefare.

Cyber crime

Somewhere in the South China Sea, a US and European missile cruiser on joint patrol stray too close to one of China's many man-made islands. Illegally built and hardened with military facilities- despite a ruling to their illegality by The Hague in international court- China has warned repeatedly that it will not tolerate any other nation's military presence near the controversial islands. 

The United States and the European Union meanwhile have both taken the side of many of the South China Sea's lesser nations, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, who see the military build-up as an incursion into their sovereign water  and an attempt to bully them into submission. Refusing to bow before Chinese aggression,the US and European militaries have routinely engaged in freedom of navigation exercises through the disputed man-made island chains. Yet this patrol is different. The local Chinese commander- acting on his own or perhaps with authority from his chain of command- orders a Chengdu J-20 combat patrol into the air. Armed with anti-ship missiles, the jets super cruise to within a few dozen miles of their targets, but this time instead of warning off the European and American ships, they are ordered to retaliate for the incursion. 

On board the European cruiser, alarms soundas three of the four Chinese aggressors loose a volley of anti-ship missiles. Immediately the ship syncs up with its American counterparts via a wireless communications link, and together the two ship's powerful AEGIS systems track the incoming missiles and fire off countermeasures. One ship protecting the other, supersonic interceptors fire off from the decks of both ships, eight tasked with intercepting the incoming missiles and another eight screaming into the night sky to take out the Chinese jets. The exchange between the two sides lasts just forty five seconds, at the end of which three Chinese planes are fiery wrecks, with one having landed a hit on the European cruiser and killing dozens of sailors.

Military comm networks relay news of the confrontational light speed to commanders around the globe, and within minutes air, sea, and ground forcesacross Asia, Europe, and America are gearing up for World War III. Yet within just seconds of the news of the attack on the European and American ships, a new generation of weapons have already been deployed. Less than a minute after news of two dozendead European sailors and three downed Chinese pilots reach the desks of their respective military commanders, cyberweapons have already gone on the offensive, a digital war sweeping across the internet at the speed of light, and catching the entire world in its wake.

Such a scenario may seem a bit far-fetched,yet it's an eventuality that every day militaries all over the world prepare for. In fact, every single day a digital war takesplace amidst the background chatter of daily internet use, with nations attacking each other's critical infrastructure looking for vulnerabilities. Considered a 'soft war', these attacks aremeant to look for and stockpile potential vulnerabilities in the digital systems that are the lifeblood of modern nations. Energy grids, communications and financial networks are the primary targets, and while no nation is yet launching an offensive to actually cripple these systems, they instead stockpile vulnerabilities so that they can exploits them in a time of war. 

Yet other nations, such as Russia, carry out more overt and hostile attacks such as against a nation's political systems. Best seen in the 2016 US Presidential election,during which Russia hacked the DNC to favor the Donald Trump campaign, Russia has in fact been carrying out cyber attacks against the political systems of NATO and Baltic nations for at least a decade. Russia has regularly used its cyber muscle to favor far-right politicians while attacking centrists and liberal candidates. They use their cyber influence to stoke dissent amongst a country's citizens, and to stoke fear and xenophobia which they can channel towards the far-right, nationalistic candidates that they prefer and can thus manipulate on selected into office.

Russia's reach is indeed far, and while their influence on the 2016 election was significant, their best success to date so far may be Britain's Brexit vote, during which they ran disinformation campaigns online to stoke xenophobia. With Brexit being a widely recognized political and economic disaster for Britain, Russia has found great success in its cyber offensive operations. Yet if cyber warfare is so prevalent and has obviously hostile intent, why don't nations react the way they would to kinetic attacks? That's partly to do with the fact that cyber warfare itself is a very new development, and so the international community is at a loss as to how exactly respond to the cyber offenses of another hostile nation. In Russia's example, NATO could react witha kinetic attack against Russia, but politicians must ask themselves if cyber operations aretruly threatening enough to warrant an all-out kinetic war.

When a hostile nation has so clearly meddled in your politics and perhaps set the course of your nation's political leadership, the question may indeed need to be considered a strong yes- after all, just how sovereigns nation are you really if your elected leader is a tool of the Kremlin, or routinely takes action on the international stage that benefit the very nation that is hostile to you and is attacking you every day? There simply exist no clearly defined boundaries between what constitutes a hostile military attack against a nation, and what is simply cyber crime. Currently cyber attacks by hostile nations are lumped together with espionage, crime, and hactivism, and realistically you wouldn't call for an airstrike against a teenager hacking into Papa John's to get themselves free pizza delivered.

You wouldn't do such a thing because it would've an over-reaction, but also because it's completely unrealistic: nobody wants PapaJohns pizza- even if it's free. On a serious note though, our current lack of political will to classify hostile cyber attacks as military actions only leaves nations even more vulnerable to being further attacked.

Russia, emboldened by their 2016 success in the US election, has for instance been widely reported by intelligence agencies around theworld as gearing up for an ever greater campaign against the American voter in 2020. Yet the US has largely been silent in itsresponse to Russian aggression- despite President Obama's expulsion of several Russian diplomats known to be active spies, and an alleged brief cyber attack against Russian systems that led to some Russian computers overheating and melting down.

 Sadly the Trump administration has shown little willingness to punish Russia for its attacks against the US, and not only is the lack ofthe political will to strike back suspicious, but it is also dangerous for the world at large. If the world continues down the road we areon, cyber attacks will only escalate until ending disastrously in an attack that's finally large enough to warrant a military response, starting a large scale war. Yet such an attack will likely be completely devastating to the victimized nation, resulting in major disruptions to its power grid or financial and communication systems, bringing its economy to a screeching halt. 

Perhaps what would be best instead is if cyberattacks were at last met with a significant response, thus marking a clear line in thesand for just how far cyber warfare can be taken before military retaliation is inevitable. But just how deadly could a cyber war reallybe? The answer to that question is in our ownnot too distant past. In the early 2000s before the Iran nuclear deal, Israel was reaching a political crisis point. For its own continued survival it could notallow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, yet with the expansion of several enrichment facilities iran was poised to do just that in a matter of years.

Many inside of Israel saw a preemptive strikeas the best course of option, yet each time Israeli jets had strayed into Iran, they had brought up the possibility of major retaliation. An all-out war between Israel and Iran would have quickly spilled over into other Arab countries, leading to yet another Jew-Arabwar which would have in turn brought in Israel's American and European allies. For the US this situation was completely unacceptable,as was a nuclear Iran. Not only was there the risk of a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel, but if Iran was allowed to develop nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia andJordan both had already stated that they would immediately begin developing their own nuclear weapons as well. 

In short a nuclear iran would lead to a nuclear middle east, the single most volatile region in the entire world. Yet allowing Israel to kick off another majorwar by invading Iran was not a good option either, and with Iran digging its enrichment centrifuges deep underground, simple military strikes would prove fruitless. That's when US and Israeli computer scientistscame forward with a solution. They believed they could infect Iranian computer with a worm that could in turn destroy the Iranian centrifuges, and leave the Iranians one the wiser as to what exactly happened.

 The plan was immediately ok'ed, and working together, US and Israeli engineers developed the Stuxnet virus. However, the centrifuges and the computer network they were linked to were not connected to the internet for obvious security reasons. This means that the virus would have to bebrought in physically and uploaded directly to the secure computer network, and to dothis several Iranian nuclear scientists were singled out and targeted digitally. Eventually the team managed to infect thelaptop of one of the scientists while he was connected to the internet, and when he brought the laptop into the nuclear facility and connected to the network there, the worm hopped inside the secure computer systems and began to wreak havoc.

 Centrifuges began to spin wildly out of control,causing massive destruction and bringing the Iranian nuclear program to its knees. In the end thousands of centrifuges were destroyed,all by the simple click of a button. A modern cyber war could have just as dire,and physical consequences. If infected, the computer systems of nuclear power plants could be shut down, or hijacked completely- hackers could for instance orderthe release of all water in the plant's cooling system, which would lead to a nuclear meltdownof the overheated reactors and regional disasters all across the land. With hundreds of nuclear power plants aroundthe world, this could devastate major portions of most modern nations. 

After the Russians cyber attack

Even conventional power systems could be affected theough with the physical infrastructure overloaded to the point of causing significant structural damage across a nation's power grid. Such a disaster would take weeks, or monthsto repair, and if it happened during winter could lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable segments of a population. Dams could be hijacked as well, and emergency slices meant to help deal with rising water levels during heavy rains could be forced to remain closed, leading to a collapse of the entire damn. 

This would bring untold devastation as hundreds of millions of gallons of water rushed downstream to overtake the communities living in theshadows of large dams such as the three gorges dam or the Hoover dam. Luckily for us, no nation has yet dared to launch any such attack against the other- save for some cases of tampering of Ukraine's energy grid by Russia. Yet the reality is that in the case of another major war, these types of attacks would be the first to be launched by a hostile power.

 The option is especially attractive for nations such as Russia and China, who find themselves at a considerable military disadvantage against Europe and its American ally, and in the case of war, it's a certainty that some degree of major attack against a nation's digital infrastructure would take place. The unknown question to many though is justhow severe an attack will take place, and how well could a nation weather such an attack. Even more troubling is the fact that many of these attacks could result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions,and yet these cyber weapons are not yet considered weapons of mass destruction.

 If caught unawares and the US is crippled by a cyber attack that leads to millions of incidental deaths, are the leaders of Russia and China confident that American leadership won't consider this an attack by a weapon of mass destruction and retaliate with a nuclear attack? That is the question that haunts many of theworld's premier cyber experts, and sadly, one that we might just have to blunder into in order to find the answer out. The Cyber War will and already is happening and the people who are going to suffer the most are normal users like you. 

The military has whole teams fighting this,what do you have? You don’t need to have the resources of an army to protect yourself. Let us know in the comments, and as always if you enjoyed this article don't forget to Like, Share, and Subscribe for more great content! 

India vs China military Power comparison : who will win

Today we’ll be comparing the two largest countries India and China, in the world in terms of population, with India set to be the most populated country in the world by 2022. 

Both nations have seen widespread economic progress in recent times, thanks to China’s economic reform and the liberalization of India’s economy. Presently, China has the 2nd largest economy in the world behind the United States, although according to Fortune “America’s economy will not be the world’s largest for much longer.” 

According to some analysts, in the near future, India also has a chance of becoming the world’s largest economy. While both countries still experience high poverty rates, some progress has been made. A lot of this new money, however, has been as much about social progress as it has defense matters. 

Information	China	India
Population	1.38 Billion	1.31 Billion
Frontline Personnel	2,33,000	1.4 Million
Reserve Personnel	1.4 Milion	1,155,000

Information	China	India
Main Battle Tanks	9150	5978
Armored Fighting Vehicle	4788	6704
Self Propelled Guns	1710	290
Towed Artillery	6246	414
Multiple Launch Rocket System	1770	292
Main Tank	VT  VT4	T-72,T-90 T90

Let’s start with the larger of the two nations both in terms of population and economy, which is China. We should note that in 2017, the World by Bank said that China’s economy shows signs of slowing down while India’s is still revving up. And we already know that India is expected to have the world’s largest population in a few years. China’s GDP for 2016 was 11-plus trillion dollars, second only to the USA whose GDP is 18-plus trillion dollars. 

The European Union would be in second place but we cannot count that as a country. According to an article in Bloomberg published in 2016, at projected growth rates, China should have the world’s largest economy by 2028. Not surprisingly, China has seen increased spending on defense, and in 2016 that amount was $146 billion. The Guardian puts it higher at around $150 billion. Behind the USA, this is the most any country spends on its defense. India’s 2016 GDP was around 2.3 trillion dollars, making it the 7th largest economy in the world. 

Analysts state that at projected growth rates, that will be $6.84 trillion by 2030. Of that, $52.2 billion went to defense for the year 2016-17. This means India is the 5th biggest spender on defense behind the US, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. With such a fast-growing economy, it’s expected that India will significantly increase the military budget over the coming years.

China has the largest population in the world with 1.38 billion people. The country has around 2,335,000 active frontline personnel and over 1.4 million active reserve personnel and paramilitary forces. This is the largest army in the world, almost double the size of the USA and India. North Korea also has a very large army if you count all those people on standby with some military training. India’s population is 1.311 billion people, almost 1.4 million of whom are active military personnel. 1,155,000 people are serving as reserve personnel.

Both countries have been busy updating their arsenal of weapons on land, in the air, and at sea. According to sources, China has 9,150 Main battle Tanks, 4,788 armored fighting vehicles, 1,710 Self-propelled guns, 6,246 Towed-Artillery, and 1770 multiple launch rocket systems. We should note that various sources give different numbers. Some equipment might be out of date and not usable, while there is constant growth. China’s cream of the crop is its third-generation VT-4 main battle tank, which its military claims is the best battle tank on the planet. The country is also the proud owner of a large fleet of Type 99 and 96 tanks. 

China is sometimes said to have the third-best tank force in the world behind the USA and Russia. But guess who’s fourth? You guessed it, India! India has around 5,978 main battle tanks, 6,704 armored fighting vehicles, 290 self-propelled guns, 7,414 towed artillery, and 292 multiple-launch rocket systems. Some of this hardware is said to be in need of an upgrade, but that’s just what India is doing right now. It has a large force of T-72 tanks, but it’s also the owner of the highly touted Russian-made T-90 tank. 

According to Bloomberg in 2017, the country spent millions on upgrading its almost 1,000 strong fleets of T-90s. A force to be reckoned with, given that the-90 is often on the list of the world’s best tanks. India also has initiated the Field Artillery Rationalisation Plan, in which 3 billion dollars will be spent on 3000 to 4000 pieces of new artillery.

AirPower

Information	China	India
Aircraft	1300	1720
Main Aircraft	Russian  SU-35s, SU-27s Su-35s	1) Russion SU-30MKI, Mig 29   Mig-29 2) French -  Mirage 2000 Mirage 2000

In 2016, National Interest put China behind the USA as the second most lethal air force by the time we reach 2030. From its around 1,300 total aircraft, China has a large number of Russian Su-35s and Su-27s, with the former being one of the best aircraft ever made. But China’s ace up its sleeve are the Chengdu J-20 and J-31 stealth fighters, aircraft which U.S. analysts have agreed are a feat of engineering. 

This is one reason why China is such a threat. India didn’t make National Interest’s list. India is said to be the fourth largest airforce in the world in terms of personnel and aircraft. From its 1,720 aircraft, about 900 are combat-capable. Its fleet consists of Russian built Sukhoi Su-30MKIs and Mikoyan MiG-29s, as well as the highly-rated French-built multi-role fighter, the Dassault Mirage 2000. 

The latter is certainly up there as one of the best military aircraft ever built, but will India have the money to invest as much as China is in buying or developing its own top of the range machines? 

Ocean power 

Information	China	India
Aircraft Carrier	1	1
Destroyers	25	11
Amphibious Transport	3	0
Frigates	42	14
Nuclear Attack Submarine	8	15
Conventional Attac Submarine	50	15
Main warfare Ship	0	7

For the ocean, China again is very strong. The country has one aircraft carrier, 25 destroyers,3 amphibious means of transport, 42 frigates, 8 nuclear attack submarines, and around 50 conventional attack submarines. The country is investing a ton of money on updating its navy, which includes two new states of the art supers enough to make any country’s military quiver. These should be ready in 2020 and 2023, respectively. 

By that time only the USA, UK, and China will have ships of that size. Although just a few years later it is expected that India will have its own supercarrier in the form of the INS Vishal. It’s also expected to be a work of military art, but it is early days yet. Right now India is one of few countries to have an aircraft carrier, and it also owns 11 destroyers, 14 frigates, 15 submarines,23 corvettes, 0 amphibious assault ships, and 7 mine warfare ships. It is also a very powerful navy but is said to lack submarine strength – unlike China. 

As we know the USA and Russia have the lion’s share of nuclear weapons, but China has around 270 of these weapons. The actual amount has been the focus of considerable speculation, with some analysts stating that China has many more nuclear weapons hidden underground. We should add that this has not been confirmed and some critics have said it’s hogwash. 

India also has nuclear strength, owning around 120 nuclear warheads. In conclusion, both militaries are growing in power, and both countries are leading the world with a handful of other nations in terms of technology. 

Who do you think would win in this hypothetical matchup? India or China? Let us know in the comments!

India china border tension explained

The border tensions brewing between India and China is a critical issue that has not been discussed upon much in our TV news channels because it probably raises uncomfortable questions .Have the Chinese invaded the Indian territory? If yes, then to what extent and how many intruders are there? How much area has been occupied by them and what is the reason behind this? The Indian government has not yet provided answers to these questions No clear cut answers to these questions have been given by the Indian government But there are some reports and some sources of retired army officers we will try and find the possible answers to these questions I will present the argument of both the sides here So that you can evaluate both the sides and try to find out the truth Come, 

The border between Pakistan occupied Kashmir and India is called LOC- Line of Control But the border between Chinese occupied Ladakh and India is called LAC.Line of Actual Control You can take a look at the map- LAC is the line between Aksai Chin and India And LOC is the line between PoK and India. Now, there are some critical differences between LOC and LAC, LOC is very clearly defined Both Pakistan and India are aware of where the boundary line actually is But the LAC line is not clearly defined , there is a word for it- Demarcated So LOC is demarcated while LAC is not That is, it's not clearly defined Both China and India claim that the LAC is in different places . Both the countries have different perceptions about where the LAC actually lies And due to the different claims by both the countries, there is an overlapping territory between them.

Disputed area between India China

There weren't any posts of the Indian army or the Chinese army Both the Indian and the Chinese army merely patrolled that area And this is why there were clashes and conflicts between both the armies when they came patrolling which you might have even heard about- these clashes would recur between the two armies every 2-3 years and they happened because of these grey areas. One army came patrolling whilst the other was already patrolling, Then one army would write on banners to tell the other that they were trespassing upon their territory and would request them to go back Ever since the Indian army has upgraded its equipment and improved its infrastructure over the past years, the Indian Army increased the frequency of its patrols ,this is the reason why the conflicts and confrontations with the Chinese army have also increased Whenever this happens, the media on both sides report of an Intrusion of the Indian/Chinese army on their soil Things like these keep on recurring. But the situation today is more serious that these regular and minor skirmishes .

It is believed that the conflict ongoing today started on 5th May and it was reported for the first time on 12th May by the Economic Times. This entire situation is happening in Pangong Lake- which is a lake in Ladakh. If you remember the 3 idiots movie- the end scene of the movie was shot in this lake It is a very long lake- around 130 kilometres in length and its breadth is around 5 kilometres. The scene in the movie 3 idiots was shot on the westernmost part of the lake But around 60% of the area of this lake falls within Chinese occupied territory and the Line of Actual Control passes through this lake. If you take a look at the map, there are pointed edges protruding in the norther side of the Pangong Lake .The shape of the lake is somewhat like this These pointed edges are called "fingers" of the lake Starting from the left/West side, these fingers have been named Finger 1, Finger 2, Finger 3 and so on India claims that the LAC lies in the Finger 8 area China  claims that the LAC lies in the Finger 2 area The Grey Zone that we talked about earlier lies in between Finger 2 and Finger 8 on the map Talking about the ongoing problem, it was said on 4th-5th May that Chinese troops had reached till Finger 5 while patrolling and this led to a conflict Talking about the second conflict, it was reported that between 10th and 11th of May the Chinese troops reached Finger 4 while  patrolling and this led to stone pelting A fist fight broke out between Indian and Chinese troops in which 11 people got injured But the talks about tensions and Chinese intrusions today is not just about one place But three different places The first area is Pangong Lake that I told you about The second area is Galwan River Valley in Ladakh And the third area is Hot Springs near Kongka Pass.

Newly released map

Aggressive china post

 Let us first start with the Pangong Lake, Retired Colonel Ajay Shukla Ji in order to find out what his sources have to say about the extent to which Chinese intrusion has taken place in the Pangong Lake -As per your sources, how far do you think China has occupied territory in the three areas of conflict? 

The Pangong Lake 

The spurs that move downwards towards the Pangong Lake from the mountains have been numbered. The Number 1 is on the westernmost side on the left and lies on the side of India and then number 2, 3, 4... until number 8 is on the easternmost side- on the side of China The land between Finger 4 to Finger 8 had remained unoccupied until now and there had been no troops there There were only patrols by both the sides Right now, China has physically occupied it and have stationed themselves there

.

The numbering of Pangong Lake

 They have brought in arms and are preparing trenches and their stations and have occupied that area completely  -How many soldiers have occupied that area between Finger 4 and Finger 8? -There are around 4,000-5,000 Chinese soldiers in the area between Finger 4 and Finger 8 -And this is a distance of 4 kilometers.This is the Indian territory that they have occupied For a different viewpoint the of Retd LT. General H S Panang regarding this Pangong Area He wrote his opinion on the Print Media website and the results according to his assessment was quite similar to what Ajay Shukla ji told us. The area between Finger 4 and Finger 8 has been occupied by China which came under the "grey area", even though India's claim was up till finger 8 So China has moved into the area claimed by India, and this, according to him is an area of about 35-40 square kilometers and China has stationed around 1-2 battalions here He also believes that the journalists that are "misinterpreting" these Fingers and are basically saying that it cannot be said that Chinese have occupied Indian territory. These journalists are basically playing into China's hands, They are basically favoring China by denying that China has moved into the territory claimed by India -

The Galwan valley and the Hot springs

 - the situation is the worst in Galwan. The area between Finger 4 and Finger 8 is a tiny area which does not dominate any area further and the occupation of which does not yield a lot of benefits to the Chinese soldiers on the military front But they are going to reap a huge benefit on the military front in Galwan By coming into the Galwan valley and stationing themselves on the Galwan heights, the 255km road that has been laid until Daulat Beg Oldi from Shyok and Darbuk which travels northward towards Daulat Beg Oldi. The Chinese soldiers that have moved into the Galwan Valley are in a strategically beneficial position as they can overlook that road. They can use artillery and cannons to fire on it And if they want to stop India from making use of this road, then they can easily do so Because the intrusion in Galwan is the most dangerous. 

H S Panag Ji has also pointed out in his article that the area of the Galwan river valley has been breached into by China and they have occupied around 2-3 kilometers of the area at a height Around two Chinese battalions are present at a height, which is a huge disadvantage for India. It becomes easier to attack lower terrain if one is situated at a height, Another thing pointed out by him is that the differing perceptions of the claims by India and China and the grey area in between, In the area of the Galwan river valley, no such grey area is present India and China do not have different perceptions in this area. There exists one single line So according to him, Chinese intrusion in this area is actually encroaching upon Indian territory.

 And the differing perceptions regarding the claims of India and China is clear in the case of Pangong Lake Does something like that exist in the case of Galwan as well? 

Galwan Valley

Galwan was an area where both the Indian and the Chinese soldiers did not get into conflicts. The claim lines of both of them were approximately the same Chinese claim line in Ladakh was separate from Galwan So by coming in here, the Chinese soldiers have violated their own claim line.

And (what about) the third region- the Hot springs region? 

As per sources in the Indian Army, China is only pressing for the third region in order to divert the focus of the Indian soldiers and to disturb them But they will get no strategic benefit by encroaching here Neither have they captured much land nor is there a military benefit as in the case of Galwan. the viewpoints of some more retired army officers Lt. General Rameshwar Roy has said that we should not compare this situation with the earlier situations, The situation today is far more grim Col Malkiat has said that this situation is basically like "Chinese Kargil" This situation is that critical KJS Arora said that this is a loss of national pride and it is extremely shameful how some politicians are trying to douse the situation by giving us the excuse of different perceptions and are not admitting that India has actually lost territory to the hands of China. 

The Indian government has made no clear cut communication with its citizenry during this entire situation In an interview, Rajnath Singh Ji said that Chinese have come into Indian territory in sizeable numbers When the video went viral, some people began to share it as an admission by the Defense Minister So then PIB brought out a "fact check" and the government denied it, saying that Rajnath Singh meant something else and that he is being misinterpreted He merely meant that the Chinese troops have reached the LAC. So the BJP leadership of India is not able to take some stern steps but it does not want to show the public that it is adopting some other ways in front of China and this is why, they have maintained right from the start that China has done nothing at all They say that China merely occupied a small portion of the disputed area for a while, after which they left The tune that Pakistan adopted during the surgical strikes and during the time of Balakot, that India said nothing. They're merely lying that they came Similarly, the BJP leadership is adopting the same approach against China right now. 

That they never came China has trespassed into the Indian soil as of now. So India is doing the same thing with China, which Pakistan did with India back then -India is doing the same thing with China. This leadership, in a way, is forfeiting its own territory Some experts believe that not telling everything to the citizens is a good strategy by the government Otherwise, it would lead to a lot of pressure being mounted on the government from the opposition and the people to take action in one direction If the government does not divulge a lot of information to the people, then it would have more available options of how to address the situation Maybe they would want to let go off an area But if they let the public know, there is so much nationalist sentiment within the people today that they would they take the government to task It would then mount pressure upon the government to retaliate to China in the same manner that it adopts, for example, the surgical strike in Pakistan that we talk about but on the other hand some experts like Lt. Gen. H S Panag maintain that if the government is denying this information to the public.

There are many different theories for this by different experts Some say that China is inculcating nationalist sentiments within its own country in order to divert the attention of the people from the state of the economy which has crashed due to COVID 19 Others deny this and say that the reason is that China is threatened by the road India is constructing and China wants the construction of the road to stop and India is denied the strategic advantage that it would otherwise get -What do you think are the reasons for the Chinese to behave like this? One reason is stated to be the DSDBO road China is doing this to stop the construction of this road. 

Impeding the road construction is an instrument, an advantage, a military tool that they have got, But why they want to stop the construction of the road is extremely important In my opinion and according to many experts, when India changed the status of Kashmir on 5th Aug last year and changed the status of Ladakh as well When it was made into a union territory by India from being a portion of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and when it was said that Aksai Chin. which has been occupied by China is also a part of it, This made China feel that India is unilaterally changing the status of this entire area And this was not at all liked by them And now they want to show that if you can change the status unilaterally, so can we, 

-But will not doing this affect them geopolitically? As it is, a lot of countries in the world are against China at the moment regarding the Coronavirus situation and due to other reasons as well. The UK is also against it due to what's happening in Hong Kong So will it not backfire on China to be at loggerheads with all the countries? -China is basically trying to show that it is a global power And that they will resort to arbitrariness if they so wish to and they can do so on many fronts Gone are the days of fighting only on one front, of it not being able to fight with India if a fight with Vietnam is on Right now, China believes that it is the kind of superpower that it can pursue Chinese interests on multiple fronts simultaneously. 

Spotlight on the Gurkha regiments:beyond the call of duty

The war cry of the Gorkha Regiments is ‘Jai Maha Kali, Ayo Gorkhali’ .

Sam Manekshaw, India’s first field Marshall, who himself belonged to the eighth Gurkha Rifles regiment, once famously said: “If anyone tells you he is never afraid, he is a liar or he is a Gurkha.”

War cry of gorkha

Gorkhas are soliders native of Nepalese nationality,that was started recruiting by British army.The Gorkha word was originated from kingdom of nepal and expanded under  Prithvi narayan shah.they are associated with a forward curved nepali knife called khukuri have a reputation of fearless military power.

Around 1816,Anglo nepali war was fought between Gurkha Kingdom of nepal and British East India company .Treaty of Sugauli was signed in the end. Gorkhali soilder made an impression on British ,who called them Gurkhas.

   Gorkha empire before the 1816(Sugali treaty)

After India gained Independence, six Gurkha regiments were transferred from the British to the Indian Army as part of a tripartite agreement between Nepal, India and Britain. A seventh regiment was raised after Independence. Currently, there roughly are 32,000 Gurkhas who make up the 40 battalions serving in the seven regiments in the Indian Army. There is not a single military campaign launched by independent India, where the battalions have not left their indelible mark. In recent decades, many retired Indian Army officers would recall the sheer tenacity, courage and combat skills of Gurkha troops at the dizzy heights of the Siachen Glacier in Ladakh.

The Gorkha Regiments have been awarded 3 Param Vir Chakras, 33 Maha Vir Chakras, and 84 Vir Chakras during operations.

                    Gorkha regiment

Hitler once said “ If I had Gurkhas, no armies in the world will defeat me ”.

Also check the article on Importance of Pangong Tso Lake and Galwan Valley :China's presence in Ladakh

Hong Kong will no longer autonomous from china

Mike Pompeo says Hong Kong will no longer autonomous from China.as China prepares to impose a new security law in the territory and will likely end Hong Kong's special status and further damage US-China relations.

Flag of Hong Kong and China

       

The  march had started been planned in Hong Kong’s Legislative Council on a new national anthem bill, which would punish anyone who insulted China’s anthem with up to three years in prison.

History of Hong Kong

Hong Kong was occupied by uk in 1841,in 19th century China ceded the Hong kong,uk signed the agreement with China on 19 December 1984 ,under this agreement Hong Kong became the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 1 July 1997.

In this agreement, China has promised that, under its "one country, two systems" formula, the Chinese socialist economic system will not be imposed on Hong Kong. Hong Kong will enjoy a high degree of autonomy in all matters, except foreign and defense affairs, for the next 50 years (at least until 2047).

                 Map of Hong Kong

Shimla Convention and McMahon line

After Anglo-Burma war, when Assam became a part of British, the British had a lot of conflicts with the tribes because of tea plantation activities.

Resolve these conflicts, the British decided to resolve this issue by creating inner-line and outer-line permit system. As per the system, the British would carry out trade within the region of inner-line areas while outer-line areas will remain out of bounds for the British and would be for tribals.

In 1911, a British officer Noel Williamson happened to cross the banks of river Dihang and entered into the area occupied by Abor tribe. This led Abor tribe to hit back to Williamson and the Abors massacred the entire team. The British decided to retaliate and with a larger objective in mind, the British crossed over into outer-line areas and decided to forestall the Chinese presence and conclude the boundary with China. 

                 Anglo abor war 1911

The Williamson episode let the British to resolve the boundary issue with China. What also motivated the British to resolve the bounty issue once and for all is the fall of Qing dynasty in 1911-12. The collapse of Qing dynasties also led to a mutiny in Tibet and Tibetans revolted against the Ambans. This led to collapse of the Ambans and Dalai Lama returned back to Lhasa in 1912. The British now got the right opportunity to keep Chinese and Russian route of Tibet and make both a truly autonomous buffer state point the right opportunity came because of 

1. Easy access to outer-line areas due to Williamsom episode,
2.  Fall of Qing dynasty led to a weak Central government in Peking, 
3.  the Ambans got crushed due to a mutiny in Tibet.

The British played their cards. In 1912, the British minister in Peking short of a letter to Peking, He asserted that China is interfering in Tibet and this is a violation of Lhasa convention 1906. He asserted that Chinese suzerainty is recognised by British (over Tibet) but that does not entitle the Chinese to interfere in Tibet. He asserted that China has violated Lhasa convention so should now come for fresh negotiation.

All this was just a game played by the British. Their ultimate aim was to take advantage of a weak Chinese Central government and convince China to go for a fresh round of negotiations. The Chinese agreed to it and decided to go for talks. It is in this context that on 23 May 1913, the British invited China, Dalai Lama for 3-party talks and decided to hold a conference on 13 October 1913 in Shimla point the British Foreign Secretary Sir Arthur Henry McMahon as the chairman of the conference.

Simla Convention

In 1913, the Simla Conference began. The British were represented by McMahan, China by their representative Ivan Chen and Tibetan representative was Lonchen Shatra. The moment the conference vegan, China protest unveiled the British plan. the Tibet been given an equal status but to no avail.

                  Boundries of Tibet in 1914

The McMahon plan was:

1. India will get Tawang region.
2. Tibet will be divided into outer Tibet (Red line) and inner Tibet (Blue line).
3. Outer Tibet to have a boundary with India and our have a with India and outer Tibet to have Dalai Lama.

The Tibetan delegation led by Lanchen Shatra urged the British to keep Tibetan states in red-line area as they were and also if Tso Karpo and Tsari Sarpa (two sacred agreed to i Tibet became autonomous. Ivan Chen refused to accept the division of Tibet. China did not Sien this Shimla Convention. The British concluded the Shimla convention 1914 bilaterally with Lanchen Shatra.The British did not publish the Shimla Convention of 1914 till 1937. This was done to ensure Russia does not become angry with the British for not engaging with Russia over the birth. The British published the similar convention in 1937 and now use the McMahon Line to show the border.

The Shimla Convention and maintained Tawang cannot be a part of India as it is a part of South but the British however continued to assert that McMahon Line would be the boundary in the East according to Chinese. Thus, neither the boundary in the Western Sector could be fixed and nor the boundary in East could be fixed that was mutually acceptable to both British and China. The fixing and re-fixing of the boundaries that happened during British times was done to suit their interests. Aksai Chin was shown as a part of China in Johnson Line, but it is rejected the same point the McCartney McDonald Line which in 1899 showed Aksai Chin within China but most of the pre-partition maps of British marked Aksai Chin as undefined territory. The British maintained that the Eastern boundary is the MacMohan Line and left the Western and Middle sectors undefined.

        Disputed area over indo china border

China Standoff : Importance of Pangong Tso Lake and Galwan Valley , China's presence in Ladakh

Why in news: China has erected around 100 tents around Pangong Tso lake and Galwan Valley from 5 may 2020 and brought in heavy equipment for construction of bunkers.Indian troops are also resorting to aggressive patrolling in sensetive areas.Mediation of America between India China dispute.

 

                    Pangong tso lake 

The images circulating on social media are of Ngari Gunda airport in Tibet ,which is around 200 kilometres from Pangong tso lake.

For now top commanders of Indian army have reviewed the situation along LAC .

Click here to read full explanation of of India china border tension

History of Aksai chin and 1962 war

The British and Tibet signed the Simla Agreement in 1914, where Henry McMahon promo the drawing of borders according to a plan.the McMahon Line was drawn to demarcate borders. However, all Chinese government subsequently till date have refused to accept the Simla Agreement. The McMahon Line demarcated the Eastern Indo-Tibet border but there was no such frontier in the West in 1947. India continued to claim Aksai Chin as a part of India in the Western Sector despite having no administrative or military presence in Aksai Chin. China used the Aksai Chin territory, which was a part of Dogra kingdom in Kashmir, in 1950 to invade Tibet.

Further, in 1953, India consolidated its position in the Eastern Sector by controlling Tawang, which was a territory south of the McMahon Line.

Click here to read Shimla Convention and McMahon line in detail

After the Panchsheel Agreement in 1954, the Ministry of external affairs was informed of the need to have a new map with Aksai Chin in Western Sector declared as a part of India and in the Eastern Sector along McMahon Line. However, the new maps were not to have references to any line and ensure that India left no undemarcated territory.

In 1957 China established a road in Aksai Chin. This road was vital to take infrastructural equipment and logistics from PLA to Tibet. As this road was established, it created a storm. In 1960, Zhou told Nehru that China would give up its claims on Arunachal if India gives up claim on the Western Sector.Nehru rejected the proposal, aggravating Zhou's fear that India wants to undermine China's control of Tibet.

From 1961 ,nehru began to encourage Indian troops to go up to high altitude and assert their claim.finally Chinese retaliated aggressively in October 1962 in eastern sector almost upto bhramhputra plain.after a month Chinese declared ceased fire and maintain status quo.

      Disputed area between India and China