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 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. 

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