Loading AI tools
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
It seems that a number of objections and discussions had been made on entire Talk:Sino-Indian War/Archive 9, that Aksai Chin had been already a part of China years ago. And upon more research I have found out that there Status quo ante bellum is also supported by WP:RS. I have restored it. Capitals00 (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Where did Calvin said that Aksai Chin came under China as outcome of this war? Like you are claiming. Also you can't override all other reliable sources just because you find yourself capable of misrepresenting one source. If we say "Status quo ante" that would be perfect, since it is backed by enough reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Were you taking views of other editors objecting your edits? We have discussed each of these sources, I have found that you used a source for claiming that "area gained by China in Ladakh has been claimed by India", but source said "had", not "has" and that was during 8 September 1962, when the claim had been made. You are treating it as outcome of the war. FYI China had had also established its posts in Arunachal Pradesh months before the war, but they were removed after the war. Only because a country establishes posts and then agrees to status quo, it doesn't means that it lost territories. Since you are finding it very hard to understand this war, I can provide you another example, that there were posts of Pakistan in Kargil, during the Kargil war, India took total control of Kargil and still controls it, but the outcome of the war is still no territorial changes. Capitals00 (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I think this is clear enough:
On 21 November Beijing announced a unilateral ceasefire to be followed by the withdrawal of Chinese troops to the north of the McMahon Line. But China would retain control up to its 1960 claimline in Ladakh--a situation that persists till today.[1]
Hoffman presents it as an Indian view, but seems to agree with it:
These conditions presented certain problems for India... the Chinese claim line differed greatly from any line held by them on 7 November 1959 and reflected their efforts to estalish claims to Indian territory by force, both before and after their massive attack on Indian outposts and forces on 20 October 1962.[2]
My proposed wording is "Status quo ante bellum in northeast India; China advances to its 1960 claimline in Aksai Chin". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Taylor Fravel is more definitive:
It is difficult to determine with much precision the amount of disputed territory that China has occupied on the battlefield. China occupied several thousand square kilometers of land in the western sector of its dispute with India in the late 1950s. After the war in 1962, China may have gained control over an additional 1,000 square kilometers of territory.[3]
-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
References
@The Discoverer: After looking further in Hoffman, I find that your revised statement of the status quo is correct. It is impossible know how far the Chinese controlled before the war, but the effect of the war was to remove the Indian posts and force exclusve Chinese control. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
There they unilaterally halted and pulled back northward behind what China said was the line of control prior to the beginning of India's policy of pushing into contested forward areas.The use of "northward" suggests that Garver is talking about the eastern sector, not Aksai Chin. So, perhaps, Yang Lu is also talking about the eastern sector. Or perhaps he is reproducing Chinese POV dressed up to make it look authentic. His sourcing is definitely wrong.
By Oxford University Press, Jude Woodward, an academic on China. Now since this is another high quality source, I would highlight that the author is talking about both eastern and western sectors. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)"a unilateral ceasefire and withdrawing to the status quo ante, leaving Arunachal Pradesh in India and Aksai Chin within China."
Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.WP:CONTEXTMATTERS -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
In The Sino-Indian War of 1962: New Perspectives, Amit R. Das Gupta, Lorenz M. Lüthi, Taylor & Francis, 2016. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)"Full-scale armed conflict erupted on 20 October and lasted a for a month ending with India's defeat and China's unilateral withdrawal to its original positions."
References
{{citation}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help)The positions to which the Chinese troops withdrew in the Western sector were different from the pre-war positions.[1][2] The area gained by China in Ladakh has been claimed by India to be 6,475 square kilometres (2,500 sq mi),[3] and the total area occupied by China has been estimated to be 14,500 square miles (38,000 km2).[1] For this reason, Nehru did not officially accept the ceasefire offer of the positions of 7 November 1959, but stuck to his earlier demand to return to the positions of 8 September 1962.[2]
References
Okoth, Pontian Godfrey (2015). USA, India, Africa During and After the Cold War. University of Nairobi Press. p. 98. Archived from the original on 23 September 2016.{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) Malhotra, Inder (17 October 2011). "The Colombo 'compromise'". Indian Express. Archived from the original on 28 August 2017. Retrieved 23 September 2016.{{cite news}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) K. V. Krishna Rao. Prepare Or Perish: A Study of National Security. p. 101. Archived from the original on 24 September 2016. Retrieved 23 September 2016.{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help)
This is with regards to the text deleted without justification by Capitals00. I have broken down the main paragraph in question by sentence and pointed out the relevant portion in the references:
"China still illegally possessed about 14,500 square miles in Ladakh including the fruits of their latest aggression in this sector.Though India did not agree to the unilateral terms of the aggressor, it decided not to alter the ceasefire. India again repeated its demand for the restoration of the status quo as on September 8, 1962 as a pre-condition for a mutually-agreed ceasefire. A stalemate ensued as the Chinese rejected the Indian proposal"
"They (China) were clearly trying to establish their claim on Indian areas they had occupied only after their aggression on October 20."
"In a statement dated December 19, 1962, India pointed out that between the November 7, 1959 line and the September 8, 1962 line, there was a difference of about 6475 square kilometres of Indian territory which China had occupied."
"China still illegally possessed about 14,500 square miles in Ladakh including the fruits of their latest aggression in this sector."
"So Nehru decided to say nothing about the Chinese declaration (...) There could be no talks with China, he wrote, until the Chinese went back to their pre-September 8 positions, that is to say, vacated the areas they had occupied by the use of force (...) (Nehru said) negotiations would be possible only "on the basis of undoing the further aggression committed by the government of China on Indian territory since September 8, 1962."."
From the above, it is clear that the sources support the text that was summarily deleted from the article. The Discoverer (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
References
Furthermore, the Chinese claim line differed greatly from any line held by them on 7 November 1959 and reflected their efforts to establish claims to Indian territory by force, both before and after their massive attack on Indian outposts and forces on 20 October 1962.
@Sardeeph: you don't get to remove 6,000 bytes of reliably sourced content with vague charges like this. What are your objections? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Sardeeph asks what I am trying to do. It is to basically set the context for the 1865 Johnson Line: the first edit looking at the Kashmir side and the second edit looking at the Turkestan side. Lamb and Maxwell and their followers (among whom are many Indians) made out that Johnson made his boundary line out of the blue and then Maharaja appropriated all the territory that he included. Some even suggested that it was a collusion between the Maharaja and Johnson. That is how Johnson ended up in Maharaja's service later. In their imagination, before Johnson's entry, Gulab Singh only had Ladakh as we understand it today. But the reality is quite different. Gulab Singh's conquests were squarely aimed at controlling trade routes, because trade brought in revenue. So, as soon as they conquered Ladakh, the Dogras took control of the trade routes as far as they could go without encroaching on the other kingdoms' territories. They did want to encroach on other territories too, but that is another story.
Many scholars tell us that "boundaries" are a European invention. Asians had "frontiers", i.e., fuzzy zones in the periphery where some sort of limited control might have been exerted but mainly to control trade routes and grazing lands etc. Sovereignty over those areas often overlapped. In this particular case, it turns out that the Chinese Turkestan had absolutely no interest in either Shahidulla or Aksai Chin. Even when the Kirghiz of Shahidulla went and complained to the Chinese ambans about Kanjuti raids, they said that it wasn't their problem. It was the British and the Russians who forced both these areas down the throats of the Chinese, for their own "Great Game" ends. This happened between 1890 and 1899.[1][2][3] Before then, even if the British needed to go to Turkestan, they were escorted by the Kashmiris till Shahidulla and the Turkestanis received them there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Sino-Indian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
While the latest additions to the archives are welcome, reference to the publication by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, in 1961 entitled "Report of the Officials of the Government of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question" would be particularly useful. This is a compilation of over 300 pages of the various data and documents exchanged between the two sides over a number of meetings stretching over nearly a year, would be especially useful. This should be available as a hard copy in most major libraries. Pidiji (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Sino-Indian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is a mess. We can gauge this with the enormous prevalence of the WP:WTW however. This is usually symptom of an article that has been written as a series of statements and counter-statements. A first step to improving this article would be to smooth out the prose. A lot of it could be cut. Sourcing needs to be improved. Even one of the maps has an error! --John (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
At this point, the Indian troops were in a position to push the Chinese back with mortar and machine gun fire. However, Brigadier Dalvi opted not to fire,...". You removed this instance of "however". (In fact, you removed every instance of "however" in the article, except for one in a quotation.) A reader will be definitely confused as to why the sentences next to each other are saying opposite things, or whether they are even saying opposite things.
Dadhush, you have been edit-warring over Nizam's contribution to the National Defence Fund. But the sources say clearly that this was after the 1965 war with Pakistan, when Lal Bahadur Shastri was the Prime Minister. The Sino-Indian War happened in 1962 when Jawaharlal Nehru was the Prime Minister. What relationship do you see with the Sino-Indian War? Please explain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone verify this reference cited in the infobox "H.A.S.C. by United States. Congress. House Committee on Armed Services — 1999, p. 62". Maybe something can be found here. Otherwise its probably better to remove it.
References are also needed for the Indian strength in the ib [10,000–12,000]. It would be great if someone can add them. Gotitbro (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Legende Legende, You have added here, a figure of 70-80,000 for Indian troops and cited Eric Margolis for that. Can you please provide a quotation from the source that establishes this fact? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Here is a Chinese map with actual army unit names. --Voidvector (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Looked at the source The Lessons of History: The Chinese people's Liberation Army at 75 cited for casualities and losses. The source equally presents both Chinese and Indian claims about casualities and losses on page 343.
According to PLA records from archives, Indian casualties during the war were 4,897 killed or wounded and 3,968 captured. 57 The Indian Defense Ministry, in 1965, showed 1,383 Indian soldiers killed, 1,696 missing in action, 3,968 soldiers captured, and 1,047 soldiers wounded.58 In comparison, PLA casualties in the war were quite small, with 722 Chinese soldiers killed and 1,697 wounded.59
Could anyone explain or refer to an explanation why
While appearing to be neutral the the Wiki page currently presents only an official and inofficial Indian view on the Indian casualities and losses, but omits the Chinese view from the exact same source, which puts the Indian view into dispute. --PeterMl (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Kip1234, when an edit is reverted, it is common practice to discuss it on the talk page. Your edit summary, "Thanks, I have now included a reference although it's common knowledge that it was China that had increased their military presence in border regions before India
" completely missed the point on which your edit was reverted, WP:SYNTHESIS. Your reinstated text says:
After the suppression of the 1959 Tibetan uprising India had granted asylum to the Dalai Lama, which prompted increased Chinese military aggression in Tibet and border regions, along with the resumption of patrols in Ladakh in April.[1]
Where is the source even remotely saying that the granting of asylum to the Dalai Lama prompted Chinese miltiary aggression? I am afraid you are peddling your own theories and inserting WP:FAKE citations.
This is not a great source by the way. To justify a sentence like that you need evidence from international relations scholars, not a military historian. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Kautilya3 if you had read the book, then you would see that China DID increase military efforts in Western Tibet "in an effort to block escape routes leading to Kashmir and Nepal." The fact that many thousands of Chinese MILITARY personnel did try to hunt the Dalai Lama down is common knowledge and I have posted another (one of many available) source to highlight this for you: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/03/chinese-say-dalai-lama-india-tibet-1959. I understand that my phrasing was ambiguous and it was technically the ESCAPE of the Dalai Lama that prompted increased Chinese military aggression. I have tried to further edit the page to reflect the exact nature of what had taken place. China had been undergoing military patrols in Ladakh in 1960, which they later stopped during negotiations. So, it does (more than) remotely suggest/show that granting asylum to the Dalai Lama (his escape) - whichever term you would prefer to use - did directly influence increased Chinese military activity in Indian border regions and Tibet.I did not include a source about "international relations" (exactly what the military activity between India and China was) because it was specifically about military manoeuvres, not diplomatic relations (if that is what you meant). I also did NOT even suggest that it was the escape/granting asylum of the Dalai Lama which prompted the actual INVASION, only preceding increased Chinese military activity in border regions, which increased military tension between India and China and was a contributing factor towards the military activity that later took place there. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kip1234 (talk • contribs)
![]() | This edit request to Sino-Indian War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change 722 to 2742 I believe the death toll of the Chinese should be higher. Throughout the Sino-Indian War, far more Chinese died then 722. 151 Chinese died at Namka Chu 70 Chinese died at Walong 300 Chinese died at Nuranang 175 Chinese died at IB Ridge 1300 Chinese died at Rezengla 225 Chinese died at Se La and Bomdi La 500 Chinese died at Gurung Hill 21 Chinese died at Spangur Gap In total 2742 Chinese soldiers died during the 1962 war Sujeetsinghgrewal (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
In non-political and historical view there were two wars had happened between India and China.
1. Sina - Indo war 1962, we can find information about this war in internet and through books as well.
2. 1967 war/conflict between India and China. This the unsung and untold war by the both governments.
Note: I request Wikipedia authorities to add the content regarding 1967 war. So that the history will live long. Mahesh baki (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I fail to see the reasoning behind adding that India "won" subsequent wars with Pakistan is this some strategy to take away the magnitude of Indias defeat at the hands of China. Attempting to downplay Indias defeat by diverting to Pakistan is inappropriate and clearly an attempt to downplay this war by saying they won others with a much smaller nation. 2A02:C7F:3662:DD00:88:FC40:7D85:4A2 (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Sino-Indian War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Only Chinese view of Situations leading to Sino Indian War is showed , The Real intentions and causes of war , and Indian Point view lacks in the article It is baised in judging 2409:4043:2E1B:9E53:0:0:2988:820F (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
In addition nehru used London's false claim that the Simla Conference had already legitimised the McMahon Line, despite the conference was never agreed to by the chinese. And the forward policy was really literally an invasion of chinese territory. Not the other way around.
Those facts are not even disputed by any historians YET are omitted/spun in the artivle to make it seem like it's all china's fault for being unreasonable. And as if india is completely innoccent here and never did anything wrong.
https://m.timesofindia.com/india/It-wasnt-China-but-Nehru-who-declared-1962-war-Australian-journalist-Neville-Maxwell/articleshow/33094229.cms
The article intro seems corrupted by political bias and unwillingness to be neutral. If those info as i have outlined, are NOWHERE to be found despite they are the significant actual reasons that caused the war. I see no chinese pov here but only pro indian editors OMITTING AND HIDING real legit information as mentioned abovd, that should never at all be hidden.
I'm also aussie - not indian nor chinese yet even i can see this topic is too heavily corrupted by nationalism. Source - https://m.economictimes.com/opinion/et-commentary/1962-war-moving-on-from-our-created-china-myths/articleshow/32386638.cms 49.180.94.109 (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Sino-Indian War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Chinese Deaths from 2,022 to 722 which is acknowledged by historical sources. Sovmosc (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Intro paragragh has heavily one sided Indian nationalistic pov, and leaves out that not only Nehru rejected negotiations first and used London's false claim that the Simla Conference had already legitimised the McMahon Line, but even made new claims to non british colonised Aksai Chin ~ omitted in current article out of bias.
Ie. Nehru rejected the chinese negotiations, claimed a land area and told the chinese there will be no negotiations. Such info is not disputed. He also made the forward policy that isn't defensice if they made the first move. Hence the currebt intro paragraphs, calling it "defensive" is just whitewashing the fact that India had literally invaded chinese territory first.
To quote a excerp from a non nationalistic source:
extended quotation |
---|
Q: You suggest India's official account of the cause of the 1962 border war is false. What, in your view, is the truth? NM: By September 1962 the Indian “forward policy” of trying to force the Chinese out of territory India claimed had built up great tension in the Western (Ladakh) sector of the border, with the Chinese army just blocking it. Then the Nehru government applied the forward policy to the McMahon Line eastern sector and when the Chinese blocked that too India in effect declared war with Nehru's announcement on October 11 that the Army had been ordered to “free our territory”, which meant to attack the Chinese and drive them back. As General Niranjan Prasad, commander of 4 Division, wrote later: “We at the front knew that since Nehru had said he was going to attack, the Chinese were certainly not going to wait to be attacked” — and of course they didn't. That's how the war began. The Chinese attack was both reactive, in that General Kaul had begun the Indian assault on October 10, and pre-emptive because after that failure the Indian drive had been suspended to build up strength for a resumed attack. And in addition, the border dispute came after Nehru refused to negotiate with the chinese and to make it worse, he made a claim to the Aksai Chin, a claim which was beyond anything the British had ever claimed and on an area which Chinese governments had called their own for over a hundred years. Those are facts OMITTED deliberately in the article. Quote the excerpt below from source Q: What in your opinion were the policies, on both sides, that brought about the basic quarrel over the border? NM: As far as the McMahon Line was concerned India inherited the dispute with China, which the British had created in the mid-1930s by seizing the Tibetan territory they re-named NEFA. The PRC government was prepared to accept that border alignment but insisted that it be re-negotiated, that is put through the usual diplomatic process, to wipe out its imperialist origins. Nehru refused, using London's false claim that the Simla Conference had already legitimised the McMahon Line to back up that refusal — that was his Himalayan blunder. Then in 1954 he compounded that mistake by laying cartographic claim to a swathe of territory in the north-west, the Aksai Chin, a claim which was beyond anything the British had ever claimed and on an area which Chinese governments had treated as their own for at least a hundred years. To make matters worse, he ruled that there should be no negotiation over that claim either! So Indian policy had created a border dispute and also ruled out the only way it could peacefully be settled, through diplomatic negotiation. Source for excerpts above |
Alot of info is unfairly omitted and they should be added in to give fairer context and not to the comfort of pro indian editors who paints the forward policy as "defensive" despite anyone neutral can clearly see it as an indian invasion that encroached on chinese territory. Or that Simla Conference did not legitimise the McMahon Line as it needed the chinese signature and the document recognised china as having surzerignty over Tibet. Hence it's not even debatable that Nehru was maling a false claim that the Simla Conference had already legitimised the McMahon Line YET OMUTTED DELIBERATELY in the current article. Why is that? They don't like those facts and hide it which isn't honest.
or49.180.94.109 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Dear IP, the quotes and source based on an interview where the person being interviewed requotes 4th or 5th party are not that much reliable, its is no better than an opinion piece. This is not even an analysis but a quote of perons being interviewed. This does not make a good quality source. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I wonder why this article gives an impression that China invaded first? It is very clear from this Wiki that Indian created out-posts north of the McMahon Line, thus effective invading Chinese territory (I am neither an Indian nor a Chinese). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfoe (talk • contribs) 04:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I added a reference request for the first paragraph. First I wonder if someone could use reliable references to clarify why "Tibet Uprising" is one of the causes to the war. Is it because the uprising is supported by Indian?
Second I wonder if anyone could clarify that why a "Forward Policy" that creates outposts in foreign territory, north of the McMahon Line is "defensive"; I think McMahon Line is considered the legal boarder? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfoe (talk • contribs)
-- Selfoe
On [24 April 2007], an editor called Traing added this sentence, which has remained all these years in some form or other:
The aim [of the forward policy] was to create outposts behind advancing Chinese troops so as to cut off their supplies and force their return to China.[1][2][3][4]
References
Calvin, James Barnard (April 1984). "The China-India Border War". Marine Corps Command and Staff College. Archived from the original on 11 November 2011. Retrieved 15 October 2011. Sinha, P.B.; Athale, A.A.; Prasad, S. N. (1992), History of the Conflict with China, 1962 (PDF), History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India
The edit was labelled as "compressing". I notice that all the portions of the older content that said anything about China were excised, and this tidbit was amplifed from earlier content by declaring it as the "aim".
India's purpose was to pursue the forward policy to drive the Chinese out of any area New Delhi considered hers. On February 4, 1962, the Home Minister declared, "If the Chinese will not vacate the areas occupied by her, India will have to repeat what she did in Goa. She will certainly drive out the Chinese forces." The Indian strategy in early 1962 was to move behind Chinese posts in an attempt to cut off Chinese supplies. China's reaction any new Indian outpost, thought, was usually to surround it with superior forces.
At the time it was obvious that India was pursuing a forward policy in all three sections of the 'line of control' border with China. Posts and patrols were being pushed further and further into territory that seemed clearly to lie on the Chinese side of that border.
"I told them why it was important for us to establish posts all along our borders and that failure on our part to do so would result in the Chinese establishing these posts instead. ..."
Perforce troops had to be dispersed into small isolated posts each barely 10 to 20 strong. Obviously, such posts could act only as flag posts, merely to show physical presence of Indian troops in new areas which they were located.
In this way, by the end of September 1962, 36 Indian posts had been established in Ladakh[99] as against forty seven posts set-up by the Chinese in the area by that time.[100]
On the whole, I find that this was quite sub-standard editing. I will revert Traing's "condensing", and see what can be salvaged from the older version. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
After reading sections on this talk page, I am seeing that a lot of the problems I have been noticing on this page have been highlighted by others here. I understand that the wars occurring in and around the Kashmir region are difficult to gather information on (owing to the fact that there are so many biased sources coming out of the countries involved in said conflicts) but I am noticing that this page seems to be straying away from a neutral POV and as Kautilya mentioned in this talk page, the coverage of information on this article is very narrow. My complaint here is that a lot of my edits have been pretty baselessly reverted (when they were quite straightforward) whenever they discuss the details of what is regarded as India's losses to China in this war. The facts are that China was not present in Kashmir randomly, and all of their territorial gains in Kashmir are very obvious (the Aksai Chin region captured from India following the 1962 war and the Shaksgam Valley taken from Pakistan following the 1963 Sino-Pakistani Agreement) and internationally recognized on all fronts. The fact that this war led to a de facto border change in Kashmir is not disputable because that would be blind denial. Further proving my point, it is well-known that following the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-48, India was in control of two-thirds of Kashmir (before any Chinese involvement in Kashmir) while Pakistan was in control of one third. Aside from my explanation here, the edits I made were cited (and not just by a singular source) and all of them recognize the same things I have highlighted above. The map I added into the infobox also shows the territorial shifts and claims/control. I am urging that this issue be addressed as it is highly important that Wikipedian articles remain neutral in their POV of such topics. I am not getting into the discussion of who invaded who's land or what sparked the war because that is a different topic entirely - what the point is in terms of sheer land administration is that the land was under Indian administration before falling under total Chinese control after this war.
Xeed.rice (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
what is today known as Aksai Chin fell under de facto Chinese control following the 1962 war", is clearly false. Aksai Chin was under the Chinese control well before the war. They completed their highway the in 1957, and they eliminated an Indian police party at the Kongka Pass in 1959. All that happened in the 1962 war is that they eliminated whatever pockets of resistance India had put up to block their further advance. So the gain of territory was not the main point of the war, but rather the assertion of a claim line. We used to have informative summary in the infobox earlier. I don't know what happened to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Please Mention Northeast frontier agency as a present day Arunachal Pradesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4066:21D:321C:0:0:EC4:88AD (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.