tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post7799231660817030218..comments2024-03-28T05:22:10.255-07:00Comments on Broadsword by Ajai Shukla - Strategy. Economics. Defence.: Henderson Brooks Report, Part IV: Dhola Post, which triggered 1962 war, was on China’s side of McMahon LineBroadswordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13076780076240598482noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-8552213046438577432020-09-26T03:40:12.764-07:002020-09-26T03:40:12.764-07:00What a clueless description about the geography of...What a clueless description about the geography of the area by someone who, I am sure has never been anywhere near Thagla, Namka chu or Hathungla. With people like him pretending to be 'all knowing experts' one will certainly have more of Naveille Maxwell type authors putting out incorrect narratives. As someone who knows the area backward, I fully endorse views expressed by 'VR' above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-19439014079236674002014-03-24T04:19:40.819-07:002014-03-24T04:19:40.819-07:00Dear Ajay,
Thank you for showing me that map wh...Dear Ajay, <br /><br /> Thank you for showing me that map which did not exist in that form for the public in 1962.. I will keep a copy. <br /><br />You being an ex Army Officer, ceratin things must be very clear to you.<br /><br />The Map does not appear to be properly suveyed at many places and does not show many vital geographical features so that alaignment of the boundary can be fixed approximate specially in araes of disputes. It must be remebered that the map belongs to 1914 or earlier vinage when survey parties would not have even entered NEFA. The distance between Thagla and Dhola would be covered as per your explaination of the thickness of the line. By the way the maps where the LAC or line or McMahon line exists has not been exchanged between the two countries even till date but you seem to better advocate of Simla agreement map.<br /><br />Now tell me when was India's boundry on Maps published for the first time and on what scale maps? On what maps India has been conveying her boundary to the international community? I hope you know that Survey of India (of independent India) as such was established in 1967 though it existed much before that with one division solely responsible for international boundry.<br /> Did this so called McMahon line exist on Indian Army Operational Maps? At what scale maps ? Who took the decision to publish this or any other line dipcting India's borders ? DK Palit has described in his book that on Dhola Post and on desire of XXXIII Corps to go over to Thagla Ridge, Dr Gopalan of MEA Historical Division had clarified that McMahon line did infact run through Thagla.<br /><br />Before fixing military incompetence, be competent to answer these questions.<br /><br />The map shown by you shows geographiacl feature many kms apart. In the area of contention there is no dipiction if Bum La, sulu La, Khinzemane etc. The only thing for sure was that the line ran south of shyo Chu and along the ridgeline to a point of Bhutan border where two ridge lines emanated and ran soutwards. The Indian perception of this point in the form of latitude and longitude had been conveyed to the Chinese without any protest from them as they were busy occupying Aksai Chin. Dhola was stablished much south of it after due consideration. In fact Dalvi's 7 Brigade would later be ordered to throw away Chines from Thag La ridge which India considred as McMahon line. Those were his orders and not his recommendation. Unfortunately China prempted Dalvi and rather attacked his posts much south of Thag La ridge.<br /><br /><br />And for your information Chinese had already crossed McMahon Line and occupied Longju located South of the line. By then they had alredy occupied Aksai Chin and have had confrontation with Indians there. Thagla was a reason but the place for starting of large scale campign in East.<br /><br />So what military inaptitude are you talking about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-49307550296216111522014-03-24T01:46:11.125-07:002014-03-24T01:46:11.125-07:00well, like they said, the truth is hurt. Especiall...well, like they said, the truth is hurt. Especially when you learned it after the enemy thought you a lesson. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-71153378579313059762014-03-23T23:38:01.016-07:002014-03-23T23:38:01.016-07:00let us not forget IB was controlling tactical leve...<i>let us not forget IB was controlling tactical level deployment. </i><br /><br />Not in Kameng sector !!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-33356060737752066622014-03-23T23:30:21.304-07:002014-03-23T23:30:21.304-07:00It is hard to tell which would make the army look ...<i>It is hard to tell which would make the army look worse --- its incompetence if it was controlling tactical level deployment itself... or the impotence of its generals if they were allowing the IB to control tactical level deployment.</i><br /><br />Ajay, your remarks and sarcasm betrays the related existing realities even today, that has been allowed by GoI to foster. I hope you have read over the Chinese intrusion into Depsang Bulge and state of ITBP there. Have a think over the GOI policy on Border management and then have a relook at your unfortunate remarks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-88961168289764415772014-03-23T22:48:30.739-07:002014-03-23T22:48:30.739-07:00@ Rohit Vats
Read my response to Anonymous 11:28 ...@ Rohit Vats<br /><br />Read my response to Anonymous 11:28 aboveBroadswordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13076780076240598482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-45127992230499096412014-03-23T22:47:34.581-07:002014-03-23T22:47:34.581-07:00@ captainjohann
There is not one book by a retire...@ captainjohann<br /><br />There is not one book by a retired military officer that is unbiased and entirely factual. Every one who wrote about that debacle was trying to rationalise and justify his failure.<br />Broadswordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13076780076240598482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-62104997121608224792014-03-23T22:46:33.792-07:002014-03-23T22:46:33.792-07:00@ Anonymous 11:28
Think about what you're say...@ Anonymous 11:28<br /><br />Think about what you're saying. And also go and have a look at the original Shimla Conference map, rather than making hypothetical arguments about maps. Here's the link, posted below:-<br /><br />http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/McMahon_Line_Simla_Accord_Treaty_1914_Map1.jpg<br /><br />While we're on the hypothetical issue of map scale, a pen-drawn line on a eight-mile-to-an-inch map, would need to be more than an inch thick if it were to cover ten miles. Your definition of the scale itself makes it clear that a one-inch-thick line would cover eight miles on the ground.<br /><br />Frankly, I've never seen a pen that draws a one-inch-thick line. And the line on the Shimla Conference map is a fine-drawn line that is no more than one-sixteenth of an inch. That translates into half a mile on the ground.<br /><br />The Thagla Ridge was not the boundary. Nor was Hathungla. The simple truth is that the boundary was contested. We knew that well. Yet we established a post there, which we were militarily unprepared to defend. The generals were a party to that. They allowed that to happen.<br /><br />Sadly, good people like you mistakenly believe that defending the indefensible, including criminal failure by our generals to enforce military common sense, constitutes being loyal to the military!<br /><br />In fact, you are doing the greatest disservice to the evolution of planning and thought within the military.Broadswordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13076780076240598482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-43331214107287382372014-03-23T22:15:37.898-07:002014-03-23T22:15:37.898-07:00@ ashok singh
It is hard to tell which would make...@ ashok singh<br /><br />It is hard to tell which would make the army look worse --- its incompetence if it was controlling tactical level deployment itself... or the impotence of its generals if they were allowing the IB to control tactical level deployment.<br /><br />You choose!Broadswordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13076780076240598482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-80902755497660320502014-03-23T12:10:00.371-07:002014-03-23T12:10:00.371-07:00One had expected that you'd bring to bear your...One had expected that you'd bring to bear your military knowledge on the subject but you're acting as sounding board for someone's views (who was biased to begin with) w/o any critical assessment of your own.<br /><br />Pray, do tell me how did HB arrive at the opinion that Dhola post was south of McMahon Line? Did he physically verify it or was it a conjecture on his part after reading the correspondence with Command, Corps and lower formation HQ?<br /><br />And what is still more important to know is the present status of area where Dhola Post was established and Namka Chu. Do we consider the border to run along Thag La ridge (north of Namka Chu) or Hathung La ridge (south of Namka Chu)? If the McMahon Line still runs along Thag La ridge than how did we err in 1962 in terms of positioning Dhola post?<br /><br />It is important to mention this point for another Neville Maxwell will selectively use such data to paint India as the aggressor.VRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15325973498628657512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-51197607160372039892014-03-22T22:59:04.725-07:002014-03-22T22:59:04.725-07:00I am happy you have mentioned Himalayan Blunder by...I am happy you have mentioned Himalayan Blunder by Brig Dalvi which is a must read book along with Neville Maxwell's book and HBR. there are also plenty of posts by retired soldiers in various forums on this issue which also should be read along with Mullick's view.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02774636105865916484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-70255359859060757932014-03-22T22:58:03.755-07:002014-03-22T22:58:03.755-07:00Ajay,
McMahon line is drawn on eight miles to the ...Ajay,<br />McMahon line is drawn on eight miles to the inch map of 24–25 March 1914 and is signed by the Tibetan and British representatives. After Beijing repudiated Simla, the British and Tibetan delegates attached a note denying China any privileges under the agreement and signed it as a bilateral accord.<br /><br />This thick line when transposed on 1: 50,000 map would cover an area approximately of more than ten miles (width) Drawn on a map of the said scale. you can imagine what geographic features could have been clearly indicated that fall in India's boundary or on Tibetan side. Watershed in this are is Thagla or could be construed to be North of it. <br /><br />Do you mean to say, McMahon line while meeting the Bhutan boundary runs South of watershed as marked on McMahon Line? Are you sure the northern limit of the line is south of Thagla. (Do not look at today's Google lines)<br /><br />Moreover, when the Chinese do not recognise or did not recognise McMahon Line, where is the question of its violation? <br /><br />What you as a military commander would done when asked to organise defence of Tawang. Would you go to Thagla or remain confined down into Namkachu Nullaha and get butchered as did happen? <br /><br />Are you sure or was Handerson sure that Brigadier Dalvi was given a map containing McMahon line or rather the mandarins of MJ Desai foreign office had given McMahon line maps to XXXIII Corps with instruction not to violate that ?<br /><br />If Dhola was ordered to be established, it appears that none of the aforesaid existed. <br /><br />Do not look at todays Google straight line depicting McMahon Line. There was nothing of that sort in 1960.<br /><br />If Khinzemane existed as custom/ police post before Dalvi's 7 Brigade moved into the area, occupation of Dhola in almost the same line was not such a big mistake.<br /><br />Now, see what were the orders for Dalvi's 7 Brigade. To establish a series of posts to depict Indian boundry. If that was the provocation why did Chinese come down upto Tejpur? To covey their ideas of the Chinese boundary (South Tibet). Well then how does blunders committed in establishing Dhola post lead to the war ?<br /><br />Dhola etc are mere semantics. Had that been the provocation, it would have been limited to Dola but it was not so.<br /><br />Tawang was set up on 6th February 1951 by Major Bob Khating, a Naga Officer of the Indian Frontier Administrative Service (IFAS) and the then Assistant Political Officer at Charduar. It took the Chinese 12 years preparation to Capture Tawang. What did Nehru, Menon and Foreign Office mandarins do in that period? They prevented Army being inducted there. But ko assuage Nehru's ego, one day they decide to sent unprepared Army To Thagla ?? What statecraft ?? <br /><br />Violation of McMahon line is beating stick with our MEA mandarins of India and often used to shift the blame on the Army...<br /><br />They do it as often as possible as if it is an agreed arrangement between China and India. Chinese do not respect any such line but we tie down our Army with such imaginary lines.<br /><br />You are also falling pray to focussing the blame on the Army Generals rather than explaining the real picture to Indian public. Henderson Brook was also product of Indian environment and the same bureaucratic mind-set as Koul or Desai.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-15231028223676130482014-03-22T09:03:27.029-07:002014-03-22T09:03:27.029-07:00Normally its hard to find a single person who is d...Normally its hard to find a single person who is devotedly engaged in charity. Everyone gets or expects some favour by doing charity. In short its a clear cut give & take policy. Nehru should have taken the steps to clearly demarcate the Sino-India boundary before taking stands on China's inclusion to UNSC seat & accepting the Tibet's sovereignty of China. This would have been beneficial for both the countries & indirectly the entire Kashmir issue would have been died away. The 1962 was a total diplomatic failure rather than a defence strategy failure. This situation is not going to change & will always remain a bone of contention as in this age of resource shortages no party will be ready to make sacrifices.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8726844009873922462.post-7251200216393871372014-03-22T01:23:46.975-07:002014-03-22T01:23:46.975-07:00let us not forget IB was controlling tactical lev...let us not forget IB was controlling tactical level deployment.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15903730817227186416noreply@blogger.com