Talk:Dhola Post - Knowledge

799: 5286:, Air Commodore Jasjit Singh writes that the troops already in NEFA under 33 corps, the 4 Infantry Division (consisting 7 Brigade and 5 Brigade) were placed under the new 4 Corps. So in essence 4 corps consisted of two brigades and officers were pulled from other units and put into the new 4 corps. The headquarters of 4 corps materliased on an ad hoc basis. For the next few days no one talks about the 33 corps. (In my words, repackaging of goods had taken place; with no rebranding though. If you are the boss you can do this whenever you want, irrespective of its usefulness.) 504: 3857:" It is agreed however that the agreement did not give a textual description of the boundary. So the map is to some extent crucial to the boundary, even if it wasn't a strict definition of the boundary. Certain points were marked on the map as falling on the boundary and other points marked as not falling on the boundary. These points can be taken to be forming part of the agreement. Other points that were either unmarked or were not even known at the time of the agreement were left for future decision-making. 5417:(Hoffman, 1990; pp 150, 151): Although Kaul showed some flexibility, he was going to carry on with Operation Leghorn. He took seriously the latest in the series of dates specified by Sen for completing the operation – 10 October. … Kaul had been drafting signals for the Army Headquarters, outlining the difficulties but his messages were two sided. Behind the signals was not only bravado but also a conviction that he still had to implement the plan. He did warn, however,… 494: 473: 767: 5046:(Katoch, 2013; pp 74-96): In September, the Chief of General Staff (CGS), Lt Gen Kaul was away on leave in Kashmir. operational charge of the NEFA front being given to Gen Kaul on October 4, 1962. Gen Kaul had returned from leave on October 3 and that same evening, had been invested with the responsibility of creating an ad hoc headquarters. He moved out on October 4 to take up his new assignment to evict the Chinese from Kameng. 831: 783: 5166:

investigate what was issued. But the term "orders" is not applicable to what the Government issues. They are generally called "instructions" or "directives". That means that the Army has to interpret it for its own purposes using its own judgement. Kaul, being the CGS, was part of the decision-making team. He cannot be simply "ordered". This smells of the Army absolving itself of responsibility, which is not on.

4926: 3191:. For some fact to be mentioned in the lead sentence it has to be of quintessential importance to the topic. While you might believe that being north of the 1914 line is of quintessential importance, it is not witnessed in the RS. The RS only talk about the Dhola Post as a border post of India in what India understood to be its boundary. Then they point out that it was a "sensitive are" because the 405: 4943: 384: 652: 5186:, I missed the notes attached to the clarification needed templates. I will always be sure to check from now on. I understand what you mean when differentiating between NEFA, Kameng sector, and more localised terms such as Thagla or Dhola Post. Below is one of the reasons I am using both NEFA and Kameng Sector/Division, you have seen it as mentioned above, but just for my own clarity too... 358: 5065:, you need to look at the "reason" field to see what clarification was needed. If you hover over the "clarification needed" tag, you get to see the reason field (I don't know if some preference setting is needed for this). Alternatively, you can look at the source itself. In this case, the question was "what is Kameng sector?". That term does not appear earlier. Is it important here? -- 256: 222: 242: 5033:(Raghavan, 2010; pp 297): B.M. Kaul would command the new corps and would continue to function as the CGS. his sole task would be to force out the PLA from Thagla. Nehru, meanwhile had returned to Delhi and met the CGS on the evening of 3 October. According to Kaul’s account the prime minister said we must take – or appear to take a strong stand irrespective of the consequences. 334: 2036:

case. The dispute is that Dhola Post was established north of the actual McMahon Line (you've never disputed this); but India believed that when the McMahon Line differed from the watershed principle, the watershed principle should be followed, therefore the McMahon Line "should" have been further north in this area (I acknowledge this in the "Location and background" section).

4973:, sorry, I didn't notice the "In use" tag before editing. Please feel free to revert it if it gets in the way. But on the whole, I find the new content quite bad. I think your sources are sensationalist. Dalvi didn't know Kaul left. Nobody was in command. Sounds ridiculous. Can you use Hoffmann and Raghavan, to start with, and fill in details from others where necessary? -- 191: 266: 724: 713: 702: 691: 610: 578: 4404:

point while the sources presented here before and the sources I presented have a clear mention of a map accompanied there which means the said line is the one marked on map attached or accompanied along with exchange of notes that took place in 1914 Simla Conference. This I believe is the answer to RfCs question as well.

680: 3169:, the two contending interpretations. They are not stating any factual positions of their own on "the McMahon Line". But that is precisely what your text does, and what it has been doing for the past several months. You are taking a position on an issue which the scholars are not taking. That amounts to 4403:

you're making assumptions on your own. Interestingly an admin overlooking the case involving my comment didn't even understood it at all. I never knew my syntax is that worst. Anyhow my comment was just as per the question asked. You in your comment above said that there was no mention of map at that

3452:

Khinzemane is in between the 1914 map-marked McMahon Line and the Thagla Ridge. That is why its location is disputed between China and India. Whether "The Indian government claimed that the grazing ground belonged to Lumpo and the villagers of Le had to pay rent to Lumpo for its use" is not relevant,

2908:

Of course you "do not think that "the McMahon Line" means or should mean the line marked on the treaty map of 1914." Because you are advancing the position of the Government of India that "the McMahon Line" means what New Delhi wants it to mean: "on the Thagla ridge despite its erroneous depiction on

1657:

Although no criss-cross of Indian and Chinese posts was anticipated on the NEFA frontier, a certain rashness was demonstrated by the placement of an Indian post in an area near the Bhutan-Tibet-NEFA trijunction. It was located in the valley of the Namkachu River, below a ridge called Thagla (see Maps

5165:

which is worse that what was earlier. "Command of NEFA" is bad terminology because NEFA is territory (in fact a state), not an army unit. The term "orders" is not used by either Hoffmann or Raghavan. From the snippets of Kler, I can see that it was something issued by the Ministry of Defence. I will

3987:

Yes, "notes" are the much more important part of the 1914 agreement than the map, according to the sources. Moreover, my 'no' answer is also stating that the full boundary was not worked out in 1914, only its salient aspects. This is illustrated by the fact that the Survey of India continued to work

3789:

Based on the two sources I provided in the Additional Comments, the McMahon Line refers to a "line" delineated on a map by the then-foreign secretary of India surnamed "McMahon" during a conference between India, China, and Tibet in March 1914; or more concisely, the line marked on the treaty map of

3432:

While the Thagla Ridge is to the north of the 1914 map-marked McMahon Line, India believed that the 1914 map incorrectly depicted the border due to inadequate exploration at that time. India held that if the boundary was supposed to follow the Himalayan watershed, then the correct border should have

2602:

Ah, so at long last, your true colo(u)rs are shown. To you, the McMahon Line is not where the treaty map of 1914 shows. To you, the McMahon Line is where New Delhi says it should be: "on the Thagla ridge despite its erroneous depiction on the map." I'm sorry, sahib, but advancing the position of the

2291:

I repeat what I wrote to you on 19 June 2020: pointing out your repeated acts of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and gaslighting does not get us any further to a resolution. As documented in the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report, Dhola Post was supposed to be established south of the actual McMahon Line. It was

2035:

As to your clarification as to what is meant by being disputed, well, duh. There's a border dispute. If China accepted India's interpretation of where the McMahon Line was in this area, then there would be no dispute. So again, your weasely language does not make it clear what the dispute is in this

1792:

Oh, the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report is an "outdated government report" now? I suppose that's an upgrade from your false claim that it's a "primary source." Speaking of which, I can't help but notice that you cited 7 primary sources from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs in the article. Will

1395:

The coordinates are only slightly off because they show a location on the eastern bank of Nyamjang Chu, whereas they should be on the western bank according to the map shown in Hoffmann. We see a clearing in the forest cover on the western bank (the white area), which was the likely location of the

3214:

China moved south to demonstrate her claim and did so at a point where there could be a discrepancy between the McMahon Line as shown on the map of 1914 and that indicated by the watershed. This difference arose because the coordinates calculated from the 1914 map did not correspond with the actual

2224:

But just like before, pointing out your repeated acts of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and gaslighting does not get us any further to a resolution. As documented in the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report, Dhola Post was supposed to be established south of the actual McMahon Line. It was mistakenly established

1418:

I have now tried to use the same method as above to figure out where the McMahon Line is supposed to be on the Indian grid of geo-coordinates. According Neville Maxwell, the McMahon Line is supposed to run at latitude of 27° 44' 30" N. (I don't know how he knows this. It seems to be a gueestimate.)

2975:

At those places it did not adhere to the highest watershed line of ridges, the principle on which it was supposedly based. Nor did it adhere to other distinguishing features, such as rivers. So the Indians had fixed the boundary to the proper ridges or other salient features nearby and had planted

2970:

Compounding the problem was China's opinion that Tamaden, Migyitun, Longju, and Khinzemane were on the Chinese side of the McMahon Line. In fact, the Indians had gone beyond the original version of the McMahon line when setting up some of their posts in the summer of 1959. Thus, it was technically

2824:

So if you want to keep playing dumb, no problem. I already changed the introduction to emphasize that the McMahon Line is the one "as drawn on the treaty map of 1914." If you want to argue that "as drawn on the treaty map of 1914" is not in Raghavan or Hoffmann or any other reliable source of your

2164:

During the officials' talks the Chinese had also been told of the Indian view on correcting a map-drawn line; that is, the need to correlate it with the actual features on the ground. If a feature such as the Thagla Ridge had not been explored when the map was issued, and if the map-drawn boundary

1445:

The Simla Agreement Map of 1914 ... gives sufficient details in this area for it to be possible to work out which of the various parallel ridges in the western Nyamjang Valley is the correct boundary. Mr Maxwell gives no explanation about how he arrives at the conclusion that Dhola is two to three

5516:

valley area disputed by China and India, on the northern slopes of Tsangdhar Range, facing the southern slopes of Thagla Ridge. Clearly, outpost is located at north of the McMahon Line (as drawn on the treaty map of 1914) which straight across Tsangdhar Range but south of Thagla Ridge along which

5038:(Hoffman, 1990; pp 148): Kaul had returned to Delhi on 1 October, but was officially still on leave. On 2 October Thapar took the opportunity to recall him as the Chief of General Staff, and the next day Kaul returned to active service. On 3 October …. Decided that Kaul would replace Umrao Singh. 4429:

to be the boundary that was negotiated at the 1914 Simla Convention; this boundary may have been provisional, incomplete, and approximate, but whatever was negotiated in 1914 is the general definition. 2) Further demarcations, modifications, and finalizations were later made to this boundary that

3361:

relevant? Especially since you yourself mention in the citation you yourself added that as per the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, "it is not uncommon for border villages on one side to use by mutual agreement pastures lying on the other side of the international boundary and the exercise of

1722:

I removed it because the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report on pages 52 and 53 make it clear that Dhola Post was established north of the McMahon Line. Therefore, Dhola Post was not established in disputed territory; it was established in China as per the McMahon Line. That India believes the McMahon

1904:

Dhola is located north of the McMahon Line. There is no dispute about that. Therefore, Dhola is located in China. The dispute is whether the McMahon Line is "supposed to be" further north than it actually is based on the watershed principle. But that is a separate matter from Dhola being located

1796:

Regardless of your blatant hypocrisy, you are muddying the waters on what the dispute is. Unless you have an "updated" "scholarly source" stating that Dhola Post was established south of the McMahon Line, the fact remains that as per the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report, Dhola Post was established

1926:

I have neither ignored this point nor removed content that presents the context. In fact, I have made sure the context is presented in "Location and background": "While the Thagla Ridge is to the north of the McMahon Line, India believed that the 1914 map incorrectly depicted the border due to

3067:

This was a sensitive area. During the officials’ discussions in 1960 the Chinese had contested India’s interpretation of the alignment of the McMahon Line in the area. According to the treaty map of 1914 the McMahon Line ran south of the Thagla ridge. The Indians held that if the boundary was

2416:

2311:

1838:

scholarly sources. Surely the scholars know whatever we know and much more. You cannot argue that whatever source you like is the only one that Knowledge should rely on. Saying that it is "disputed" does not invalidate one view or the other. Both the Indians and the Chinese knew that they had

4457:

Any subsequent modifications to the boundary afterwards, or parts that were undemarcated at the time, are not strictly part of the McMahon Line but are post-McMahon Line modifications. Notes suggested that the agreement was provisional, but that just means that much of the McMahon Line was

2186:

There is no substantive difference between that and what is currently written in the last paragraph of the "Location and background" section: the Indian view is that while the McMahon Line is actually south of the Thagla Ridge, the Line is "supposed to be" at the Ridge. You have once again

3376:

All the debates concerning the region, the position of the McMahon Line there etc., happened in connection with Khinzemane, over the previous 3-year period prior to 1962. When deciding whether something should go in the background, we look at what the RS do. If the RS include it, it is

2465:

So I think we have come to the crux of the matter, which is that to you, "the McMahon Line" is not where the treaty map of 1914 shows. To you, "the McMahon Line" is where New Delhi says it ought to be: "on the Thagla ridge despite its erroneous depiction on the map." Therefore, it is

3103:

Dear sir, please tell me, when Raghavan says "its erroneous depiction on the map," what is Raghavan referring to? Is he not referring to what Hoffmann referred to as "McMahon's line"? And is "McMahon's line" not "the McMahon Line"? As in, the line drawn by Henry McMahon at Simla in

1728:

Incidentally, since you have repeatedly argued that there is no source stating that Dhola is in Tibet, China, I can't help but notice that your own source that you've just quoted placed Dhola, quote, "near the Bhutan-Tibet-NEFA trijunction." Of course, according to you, it must be

2781:. Then you finally admitted that to you, when you read the words "the McMahon Line," you do not think of the line marked on the treaty map of 1914. Instead, you think of where New Delhi says the boundary should be: "on the Thagla ridge despite its erroneous depiction on the map." 1759:, Knowledge gives weight to scholarly sources, not outdated government reports (and this particular report is not even declassified). You cannot delete content sourced to scholarly sources without producing other scholarly sources of equal stature, and even then you are bound by 4644:

The McMahon Line, as it came to be called after the foreign secretary of India at the time, was defined in a set of notes exchanged between Henry McMahon and the chief Tibetan delegate, Lonchen Shatra, on 24-25 March 1914. Accompanying the notes was a map that delineated the

3863:

In 1936 the Survey of India showed the north-eastern border in conformity with the McMahon Line, drawn with the legend 'boundary undemarcated'. Its map of 1945 marked it as the 'approximate' boundary. Not until 1954 the frontier was printed along the McMahon Line without

5429:. With him were two weak infantry battalions, ill-equipped, lacking war-like stores and ammunition, and devoid of artillery support. Gen Kaul was conscious of the hopelessness of the situation and in a series of signals to Army Headquaters, expressed his concerns. 3355:

The villagers of Le as well as those of the village Lumpo to the south are said to have traditionally used the Khinzemane grazing ground. The Indian government claimed that the grazing ground belonged to Lumpo and the villagers of Le had to pay rent to Lumpo for its

4632:

A set of notes (constituting an agreement) were exchanged between McMahon and the chief Tibetan delegate, Lonchen Shatra, on 24-25 March 1914. Accompanying the notes was a British-drawn map that outlined boundaries and buffer territory between China and Tibet.

3433:

been on the Thagla Ridge to the north of the 1914 map-marked McMahon Line. As a result, disputes between India and China arose from areas north of the 1914 map-marked McMahon Line and south of the Thagla Ridge, for example in 1959 at a grazing ground called

5431:

But Kaul had been specially sent to evict the Chinese and so he looked for a way out of the impasse. While maintaining the impossibility of military action, he stated that “he had to make some move on October 10 as that was the last date acceptable to the

3453:

even more so because the primary source of your choosing from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs stated, "it is not uncommon for border villages on one side to use by mutual agreement pastures lying on the other side of the international boundary and

2863:, just describing your own view and prejudices. I am not supporting either "Delhi" or "Beijing". I just know that some issues don't have clear-cut answers, and it is not Knowledge's job to provide them. We just summarise what the scholarly sources say. -- 4461:

Regarding the point between the map and the notes (which appears to be the main point of disagreement above), secondary sources seem to primarily refer to an original map or original drawn delimitation. In addition to the sources already listed above:

4555:

The British representative, Sir Henry McMahon, failed in obtaining Chinese consent to a division between Inner Tibet, where Chinese influence would be considerable, and an autonomous Outer Tibet; he was successful in agreeing bilaterally with Tibet

5335:

The Chinese occupied the Thagla Ridge at the beginning of September, and started threatening the Namka Chu posts. According to Bertil Lintner, they surrounded an Indian post (probably on the north side of the valley) and destroyed two bridges on 8

5409:(Raghavan, 2010; pp 297): Nehru, meanwhile had returned to Delhi and met the CGS on the evening of 3 October. According to Kaul’s account the prime minister said we must take – or appear to take a strong stand irrespective of the consequences. 3133:

If you want to interpret "the McMahon Line" without any additional modifier to mean what New Delhi wants it to mean, that's your right as a proud Hindustani. That's why the introduction emphasizes the McMahon Line "as drawn on the treaty map of

3383:

The fact that they share the Khinzemane for grazing interconnects them, and gives a wholesome picture of the border dispute. For all we know, China could have made Khinzemane and Thagla Ridge into global disputes for entirely local reasons. --

3266:

I believe the additional description in parentheses "(as drawn on the treaty map of 1914") makes it clear that "the McMahon Line" is referring to the line drawn by McMahon, not New Delhi's interpretation of where the line drawn by McMahon

2938:

As to your ridiculous claim that you haven't seen any reliable source say that "the McMahon Line" means or should mean the line marked on the treaty map of 1914, pick which reliable source you want, sahib. Do you want Hoffmann? Here you

806: 596: 2292:

mistakenly established north of the actual McMahon Line. If you would like to state in the introduction that Dhola Post was "set up" north of the McMahon Line but south of the Thagla Ridge, that is factually correct and fine by me.

3813:

the McMahon Line" (note that this quote comes from the second of the two sources I provided in the Additional Comments). However, the fact that India believes the line marked on the map is erroneously depicted in certain areas

1948:

The language I have used makes clear that the Indian position is that the border "should" be on the Thagla Ridge, but the McMahon Line is actually south of the Thagla Ridge. Your weasely "disputed" language does not make that

1453:

This does not however prove that the Dhola Post was south of the "McMahon Line". Rather, it only shows that the Indian government's idea of the map-drawn McMahon Line was somewhere close to the Thagla Ridge watershed line. --

790: 592: 5268:

If the military authors can help us with anything, they could explain how this worked. What was IV Corps and what was XXXIII Corps? How could one replace one Corps with another midstream? This is quite mystifying to me. --

2802:

Therefore, it is clear that even though there is only one "the McMahon Line," the language is ambiguous. Does it refer to the line marked on the treaty map of 1914, or does it refer to what New Delhi thinks the line should

774: 588: 2636:

But to show once again that I am willing to reach a resolution with you, despite your numerous acts of dishonesty and hypocrisy, here is my suggestion. As "the McMahon Line" is ambiguous language, I suggest a change such

1244: 2389:

And that is what I rewrote in the introduction. Dhola Post was established in a disputed area north of the McMahon Line but south of the Thagla Ridge. Yet, you have rejected this language and claimed that it violates

2039:

So no, we aren't going in circles. You simply don't want to be clear about what the specific dispute was in this area beyond the uselessly generic "India and China differed on where the McMahon Line was in this area."

1166:

is that you are citing "old sketch maps" "not drawn to scale" that you then "interpret." If your citation is Map 8 on page 139 of Hoffman (1990), why not directly use that map with no personal "interpretation" of your

5439:(Sandhu, 2015; pp 73-74): Lieutenant General BM Kaul, the newly appointed GOC IV Corps arrive (by helicopter) on the scene on 05 October 1962 and put into motion the actions to evict the Chinese from Thagla Ridge. 4458:

provisional. The later modifications and clarifications themselvesk were not negotiated at the 1914 Simla Convention, even if notes at the 1914 Convention suggested that future clarifications would need to be made.

2753:

The Indians held that if the boundary was supposed to follow the watershed, and if the Thagla ridge had not been explored at that time, then the line lay on the Thagla ridge despite its erroneous depiction on the

5264:

I don't think anything more about "orders" is necessary. It is already covered in the previous section. All that happened on 3 October is a change of command, and the new Corp commander (Kaul) inherited the old

2225:

north of the actual McMahon Line. If you would like to state in the introduction that Dhola Post was "set up" north of the McMahon Line but south of the Thagla Ridge, that is factually correct and fine by me.

153: 4278:

which means the sources already in discussion. However most of other sources too I came across gives about a map attached or accompanied in 1914 Simla Conference marking McMahon Line. Here are some of those:

3215:

location of the places and terrain features indicated.... In the case of Dhola the coordinates would work to the advantage of Tibet, but in other places the Indian boundary would be advanced further north .

1108:. Despite your penchant for technicalities, you admit that it was you who marked the locations on the map. You admit that it is you who "interprets old sketch maps." Therefore, the map created by you is 1387:

Those coordinates are in the Indian grid system, and cannot be located on Google and other such global sites. I have located it on India's geo-spatial website Bhuvan, took a screenshot, and uploaded it

1112:. The fact that we are arguing whether a map created by you constitutes "original" research is yet another example of the extreme dishonesty and bad faith discussion that you have repeatedly engaged in. 2859:

No, I do not think that "the McMahon Line" means or should mean the line marked on the treaty map of 1914. I don't think so because I haven't seen any reliable source say it. All your argumentation is

914:. I have only marked the locations on it, as found in the RS. If you believe that any locations are marked wrong or unsourced, you are welcome to raise the issue. But the map itself is standard. -- 5756: 455: 4407:

I hope it clears my stance and I be not further interrogated for my comment. I don't even know whether it is right to question an editor particpating in RfC for his comment in normal process...

2367:

As documented in the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report, Dhola Post was supposed to be established south of the actual McMahon Line. It was mistakenly established north of the actual McMahon Line.

4487:

The Anglo-Tibetan exchanges, conducted on the British side by Charles Bell, Political Officer in Sikkim, resulted in an exchange of letters The boundary was not described in the letters, but

3206:

looks nothing like the 1914 line. The Chinese knew this. It was discussed during the Khinzemane episode as well as during the Officials talks in 1960. So what is important is that the Chinese

5667:

Constructed patrol road is existed on both sides of the river except downstream. Therefore, The right-side river is Indian-controlled territory, the left-side is Chinese-controlled territory.

1392:. The circle represents 2.4 kilometres (1.5 mi) zone, which clearly shows that the location was 1.5 miles away from the junction of the Namka Chu (white line) with Nyamjang Chu (blue line). 1423:

joins the river. It is 3 km north of the junction with Namka Chu and it is also where the watershed line of the Thagla Ridge intersects with the Nyamjang Chu. Once again, I have uploaded a

5836: 5796: 2777:

Until yesterday, I was always confused as to why you kept saying that a statement such as "Dhola Post was established north of the McMahon Line and south of the Thagla Ridge" violated

5193:

At a meeting in the MMD’s room, this morning The COAS was accordingly directed to take action for the eviction of the Chinese in the Kameng Division of NEFA as soon as he was ready.

5831: 4642:

In the eastern sector Indian maps showed the boundary as conforming to the alignment formalized in the tripartite conference between India, China, and Tibet held at Simla in 1914.

4430:

became significant given the approximate nature of the line on the original map; these are later modifications though and not the McMahon Line defined in 1914. 3) The McMahon Line

2474:

as you are advancing the position of the Government of India, while I am neutrally describing the fact that Dhola Post was north of the McMahon Line and south of the Thagla Ridge.

1927:

inadequate exploration at that time. India held that if the boundary was supposed to follow the Himalayan watershed, then the correct border should have been on the Thagla Ridge."

1658:

7 and 8). The post would be called Dhola, after a pass lying further to the south. In 1959 and 1960 the Chinese had shown themselves to be quite sensitive about this area, since

939:

Oh boy, another of your infamous "technicalities." As you admit, you marked the locations. Therefore, the map previously shown in the "establishment" section was created by you.

5826: 3560: 3520: 5169:

I would also suggest not mixing the scholarly sources and the military sources since their quality varies widely. We need to be able to see who is saying what, separately. --

2417:

supposed to follow the watershed, and if the Thagla ridge had not been explored at that time, then the line lay on the Thagla ridge despite its erroneous depiction on the map.

1067:

There can be minor ambiguities when interpreting old sketch maps that are not drawn to scale. They are open to discussion just like all other content created on Knowledge. --

5816: 3470:

As to your speculation that "For all we know, China could have made Khinzemane and Thagla Ridge into global disputes for entirely local reasons," that is, well, speculation.

3298:

No, I do not think that "the McMahon Line" means or should mean the line marked on the treaty map of 1914. I don't think so because I haven't seen any reliable source say it.

3202:

India had not been following the 1914 line for several decades, even in British times. The principle that was being used to correct the 1914 line was the watershed. Even the

2369:

If you would like to state in the introduction that Dhola Post was "set up" north of the McMahon Line but south of the Thagla Ridge, that is factually correct and fine by me.

3195:

there. By way of explanation of why the Chinese contested the boundary, they state the fact that it was to the north of the map-drawn line. So the 1914 line comes in as the

3007:

Pray tell, sahib, when Hoffmann says that "From the Indian perspective McMahon's line had made poor topographical sense in some places," what does "McMahon's line" refer to?

1983:

Sorry, no. Hoffmann is saying that India and China differed on where the McMahon Line was in this area. That is what is meant by being disputed. Do you want to take this to

1839:

differing interpretations. Exchanges had taken place when the Khinzemane post was first discussed. You are ignoring all this, and removing content that presents the context.

5751: 5339:

So the Minister had to get involved, and directed that the Chinese should be evicted from the Thagla Ridge. (There is some confusion about whether Nehru okayed it or not.)

348: 5821: 5741: 854: 665: 622: 2749:

This was a sensitive area. During the officials’ discussions in 1960 the Chinese had contested India’s interpretation of the alignment of the McMahon Line in the area.

5811: 1797:

north of the McMahon Line, placing it in China. That India believes the McMahon Line doesn't follow the watershed principle is a separate issue that you're conflating.

2685:

A term like "1914 McMahon Line" is not in Raghavan, or any other reliable source I can find. All of them are clear that there were different interpretations of where

3915:

The separate Anglo-Tibetan discussions resulted in an exchange of notes between Sir Henry McMahon and the Lonchen Shatra dated 24 and 25 March 1914 which agreed to

1723:

Line does not follow the watershed principle is a separate issue. It does not contradict the fact that Dhola Post was established in China north of the McMahon Line.

147: 5761: 4450:

In simplest terms, secondary and tertiary sources seem to mostly define the McMahon Line as the frontier negotiated and/or drawn at the 1914 Simla Convention (e.g.

1733:

to argue that if Dhola Post was north of the McMahon Line near the Bhutan-Tibet-NEFA trijunction and on China's side of the McMahon Line, Dhola is in Tibet, China.

5791: 3904:(i.e. I'm not sure what's wrong or incomplete about those sources for this RfC question), your second Lamb source also states the following on the preceding page: 550: 5632:, outpost is located north of the McMahon Line" are not acceptable. You know very well that this is an international dispute and multiple interpretations exist. 5332:

The Indian commanders thought the Thagla Ridge had to be occupied for the Dhola Post to be viable. But the Army High Command didn't have the courage to okay it.

651: 1250:

The distance from the Namka Chu river to Sumdorong Chu is 1.9 miles. I will place the Khinzamane Post at a distance of 1.5 miles, as stated in the source. --

3380:

Lumpo and Le are two closest inhabitable places for this stretch of the border. Both of them are also part of the military infrastructure for the two forces.

4938:...the so-called "Battle of Namka Chu". Even though it is a catchy title, there wasn't really a "battle" there. Basically the Indian positions were overrun. 1450:

This suggests that the Indians and the Chinese were possibly talking at cross-purposes without knowing where these coordinates were in each other's grids.

5746: 4425:(primarily): After much thought on this, I see that there are three main points here. 1) In secondary and tertiary sources, the McMahon Line is generally 968:

I thank you for your 10:25, 7 July 2020 edit, as your decision to "correct" your own previously marked location of Khinzemane from being clearly in China

5806: 79: 1383:

A. Khinzemane was situated at Long. 91° 46' E and Lat. 27° 36' N and lay immediately south of the boundary, which ran along the Tang La (Thagla) ridge.

3837:"McMahon Line" is the term used to denote the boundary between Assam and Tibet agreed at the 1914 Simla Conference (between Tibet and British India). 2971:

true that certain Indian positions were on the Chinese side of the line, as that line had been drawn on an eight-miles-to-the-inch scale map in 1914.

3921:

The McMahon-Lonchen Shatra notes were not communicated to the Chinese; and they constitute a transaction quite distinct from the Simla Convention.

3919:

in two sheets at a scale of 8 miles to the inch (1:500,000). The line was to some extent conditional; but its general alignment was clear enough.

5786: 4930: 2642:

Dhola Post was a border post set up by the Indian Army in June 1962, in the Namka Chu river valley area disputed by China and India, north of the

343: 232: 2973:

From the Indian perspective McMahon's line had made poor topographical sense in some places, because of limited knowledge of the terrain in 1914.

5328:

Ok, finally, I got to see the order. It is dated 22 September. The sequence of events is something like this (I don't yet have a full picture).

4635:

The notes and the map also delineated a border along the crest of the Assam Himalaya that would henceforth come to be known as the McMahon line.

5776: 5736: 5220:

I have put variations of the first sentence in the quote box you have used for easier navigation. Accordingly future sentences can be tackled.

798: 617: 583: 560: 445: 324: 314: 3180:

Of course, scholars have to refer to the 1914 line by some means in order to talk about it. Hoffmann is calling it "McMahon's line" (note the

5600: 5581: 5562: 5150: 5131: 4909: 4890: 4866: 4847: 4776: 4718: 4477:

The McMahon Line: a Study in the Relations Between, India, China and Tibet, 1904 to 1914, Vol. 1: Morley, Minto and Non-Interference in Tibet

3752: 3733: 3712: 3693: 3669: 3650: 3631: 3600: 3581: 3550: 3510: 3219:

So the watershed line is not necessarily to the advantage of India consistently. At Dhola, it was so, but in other places it wouldn't be. --

1702: 1491: 1419:

In any case, that amounts to 27.74 N in decimal. Finding this point using Bhuvan2d in the Nyamjang Chu river valley gives the location where

626: 85: 5348:

The new commander (Kaul) went and saw things for himself, and he too decided it was infeasible. But he didn't have the courage to admit it.

3259:

river valley area disputed by China and India, north of the McMahon Line (as drawn on the treaty map of 1914) and south of the Thagla Ridge.

2533:

is not? And despite your own wording in the introduction that Dhola Post was located in an area "disputed by China and India," stating that

5642:". So I wonder where you got this from. Why is this needed here in any case, while we are supposed to be describing the Dhola Post of 1962? 1883:

Please point out where the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report (itself a secondary source) "contradicts" the secondary sources of your choosing.

5300:

A brigade in today's India has about 3,000 troops. I'm sure I saw a figure for how many troops were in 4 corps (2 brigades) somewhere....

5801: 5781: 5766: 3559:

The named reference "FOOTNOTERaghavan, War and Peace in Modern India2010293" was defined multiple times with different content (see the

3805:

is that the Government of India believes that in certain areas, the line marked on the map is erroneously depicted; and therefore, the

1399:

Unless there are any other objections, I will correct the OSM Location map as per this location, and reinstate it on the main page. --

1240:

river. The ridge to the south of the river is not labelled. It is not impossible that both the ridges are jointly called "Kenze Mane".

3328:

of sourced and pertinent content, in the name of "streamlining", whatever that means. Please explain your reasons for deleting it. --

44: 3519:

The named reference "FOOTNOTEHoffmann, India and the China Crisis1990111" was defined multiple times with different content (see the

1247:. There is indeed a certain amount of grazing land on the northern ridge, but not a great deal. The southern ridge has a lot more. 3941:

during a conference at Simla in 1914 (or more concisely, the line marked on the treaty map of 1914). Lamb further states that the

526: 421: 4946:

conveys the same) though "Namka Chu incident" is alright too, not sure how to fit "overrun" into the header though. Shifting to

2689:

lay, but nobody has said that there were multiple "McMahon Lines". So, the phrase "1914 McMahon Line" is not at all helpful. --

1653:, you have removed the sourced content that states that the area was disputed. The relevant quote from one of the sources says: 5771: 5731: 5398:

From 7 to 9 October Gen Kaul was at Dhola Post. He soon realized the futility of the order of evicting the Chinese from Thagla.

5206:

Raghavan says "his sole task would be to force out the PLA from Thagla".... just mentioning Thagla would also simplify things.

3853:

It was expressly understood that the boundary shown on the map might have to be modified in the light of subsequent information

99: 30: 5533:. Facing an overwhelming force, the Indian Army evacuated the Dhola Post as well as the entire area of Tawang, retreating to 104: 20: 4528:

in 1914 in connection with a tripartite British-Tibetan-Chinese conference held at Simla, India, to discuss Tibetan affairs.

1002: 5705:

Yes, adding a new section at the end on the "Aftermath" would be fine. Please make it as reliably sourced as possible. --

5529:

to the north, and sporadic fighting continued till 20 October when an all-out attack was launched by China leading to the

2187:

demonstrated that you are discussing in very bad faith, with your repeated acts of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and gaslighting.

2082:"Sorry, no" meaning that is not what the sources say and that is not Knowledge is supposed to say. You are doing your own 74: 1266: 168: 4647:

along the highest line of the Assam Himalaya, and that outlined the boundaries and buffer zones between Tibet and China.

3845:

the boundary along the crest of the Assam Himalayas from Bhutan to Burma, by means of an exchange of Anglo-Tibetan notes

1437:

the boundary runs along Thagla Ridge north of Mankha Chuthangmu valley and this position has been accepted in the past.

873: 838: 202: 4291:(Select Documents on India's Foreign Policy and Relations, 1947-1972, Volumes 1-2 by Angadipuram Appadorai, p 662, 671) 971: 135: 5451: 5380: 5305: 5291: 5243: 5225: 5211: 4999: 4955: 4537: 4025:. In fact, contrary to your current assertion, you yourself previously acknowledged above that based on your reading, 4021:

Based on my reading, none of the sources you have relied upon (Hoffmann, Raghavan) or rely upon now (Lamb) state that

2165:

was supposed to be set by the watershed ridge, then the line lay on the watershed ridge despite the error on the map.

1104:

There is no "old" or "new" objection. There is only the same objection: the map was created by you and hence violates

517: 478: 412: 389: 289: 279: 227: 65: 5055: 5103: 5095: 5086: 4300:(China, India, Pakistan: Documents on the foreign relations of Pakistan by K. Sarwar Hasan, Khalida Qureshi, p 253) 1630: 1619: 1608: 869: 525:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4533: 1533:

Notes, Memoranda and Letters Exchanged and Agreements Signed Between the Governments of India and China: 1954-1959

4368:

you have previously argued that there is a substantive difference between "the McMahon Line" and "McMahon's line"

1060:

The new location is sourced, with a citation given. So your old objection doesn't apply. Neither can you call it

5693: 5674: 3203: 1553:

Report of the Officials of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question

5425:(Katoch, 2013; pp 74-96): From October 7 to 9, Gen Kaul was at Dhola and had occasion to see for himself the 1662:

of how the McMahon line was situated in it. The Khinzemane incident of August 1959 had occurred not far away.

1595: 1584: 1573: 1562: 5447: 5376: 5301: 5287: 5239: 5221: 5207: 5062: 5016:

Currently three sentences have clarification needed templates. Here are the references backing those lines.

4995: 4970: 4951: 3437:

at the foot of the Thagla Ridge in the Nyamjang Chu valley, about 2.5 km north from the mouth of Namkha Chu.

621:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 129: 109: 4491:, in two sheets, which was sealed and exchanged with the letters. The boundary - which came to be known as 5638: 5522: 5469: 4688: 4622: 4375: 4259: 4192: 4070: 3970: 3823: 3771: 3475: 3367: 3309: 3139: 2830: 2664: 2612: 2555: 2479: 2297: 2230: 2045: 1954: 1802: 1738: 1531: 1359: 1299: 1220: 1172: 1117: 1039: 944: 900: 861: 1354:, the article will not feature the OSM map upon which you marked the coordinates of your interpretation. 872:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

4246:

referred to (Hoffmann and Raghavan, Lamb and van Eekelen, all of the above), none of them supports your

2655:, I will accept any change as long as it clarifies that Dhola Post was set up north of the McMahon Line 1756: 208: 4165:

the sources you presented in your reply (Lamb and van Eekelen), one of which (Lamb) actually said that

125: 4090:

most of the sources presented asserts on a map along with exchange of notes in 1914 Simla Conference.

4297:(Chinese Aggression in War and Peace: Letters of the Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, p 21) 2542:

but stating that Dhola Post is in Tibet, China (claimed by India as Arunachal Pradesh, India) is not?

2264: 1268:. They do not necessarily agree with the Indian government's location. More on the latter below. -- 190: 5710: 5689: 5670: 5651: 5473: 5465: 5360: 5274: 5174: 5070: 4978: 4502: 4341: 4214: 4111: 4000: 3871: 3389: 3333: 3224: 3068:

supposed to follow the watershed, and if the Thagla ridge had not been explored at that time, then

2868: 2694: 2582: 2526:

Dhola Post was a border post set up by the Indian Army in June 1962, in the Namka Chu river valley

2334: 2312:

supposed to follow the watershed, and if the Thagla ridge had not been explored at that time, then

2272: 2095: 1992: 1851: 1835: 1768: 1675: 1459: 1404: 1273: 1255: 1191: 1135: 1072: 919: 865: 161: 55: 2515:

Dhola Post was a border post set up by the Indian Army in June 1962, in the Namka Chu river valley

1374:

The Indian government has declared the coordinates of the location it calls "Khinzemane" in 1960.

1265:

Apparently, "Kenze Mane", spelling and location are as identified by the US military intelligence

420:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

175: 5375:

Unsaid that under the skirmishes section, only point 7 and the end of point 6 are to be covered.

4511: 1513: 70: 5441:

Kaul apparently was under some sort of pressure to do something (to evict the Chiense) by 10 Oct

4288:(1962: A View from the Other Side of the Hill by P J S Sandhu, Vinay Shankar, G G Dwivedi, p 27) 3455:

the exercise of this privilege cannot be regarded as evidence in support of a territorial claim.

2825:

choosing, then that's just another example of your many instances of dishonesty and gaslighting.

2651:

If there is some language that you prefer because in your mind, you are the ultimate arbiter of

1424: 1233: 4906: 4887: 4773: 4684: 4656: 4618: 4524:

The McMahon Line, which delineates the 850-mile Indo-Tibetan border between Bhutan and Burma,

4371: 4255: 4188: 4066: 3966: 3819: 3767: 3749: 3730: 3709: 3690: 3684: 3471: 3363: 3305: 3135: 2826: 2660: 2608: 2551: 2537:

Dhola Post is in Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh, India in the infobox is a "neutral point of view",

2475: 2293: 2256: 2226: 2041: 1950: 1831: 1798: 1734: 1650: 1355: 1351: 1295: 1216: 1212: 1183: 1168: 1113: 1035: 940: 896: 493: 472: 51: 1389: 5501: 5489: 5025:

Lt Gen Kaul took over on 4 October 1962 with orders to evict the Chinese from Kameng sector.

4577: 3188: 1508:

Murty, T. S.; Maxwell, Neville (April–June 1971), "Tawang and "The Un-Negotiated Dispute"",

766: 4285:(Indian foreign policy and the border dispute with China by Willem Frederik Eekelen, p 170) 1378:

Q.2. How far south was Khinzemane from the Indian alignment, and what were its coordinates?

5530: 4769:

Indian Foreign Policy and the Border Dispute with China: A New Look at Asian Relationships

4565: 3858: 3843:

The main British gain from the Simla Conference was the delimitation of the McMahon Line,

3705:

Indian Foreign Policy and the Border Dispute with China: A New Look at Asian Relationships

2528:

area disputed by China and India, north of the McMahon Line and south of the Thagla Ridge.

2517:, in a border area of Tawang that was disputed by China and India (and is still disputed). 1730: 3613: 1350:. Therefore, unless you can find a map showing the location of Khinzemane that satisfies 3851:

it is quite clear from the text of the notes that they were to some extent provisional.

3540: 3538: 3536: 3534: 3532: 2362:

OK, at this point I'm honestly not sure what your problem is. I have twice told you that

141: 5706: 5647: 5625: 5599:

sfnp error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFRaghavan,_War_and_Peace_in_Modern_India2010 (

5580:

sfnp error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFRaghavan,_War_and_Peace_in_Modern_India2010 (

5356: 5283: 5270: 5183: 5170: 5130:

sfnp error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFRaghavan,_War_and_Peace_in_Modern_India2010 (

5110:

Lt Gen Kaul was directed to evict the Chinese from Thagla in the Assam Himalaya region.

5066: 4974: 4865:

sfnp error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFRaghavan,_War_and_Peace_in_Modern_India2010 (

4717:

sfnp error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFRaghavan,_War_and_Peace_in_Modern_India2010 (

4398: 4337: 4210: 4107: 3996: 3988:

on refining the boundary till 1954. Hoffmann has also stated some of this on p. 21–22 .

3867: 3649:

sfnp error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFRaghavan,_War_and_Peace_in_Modern_India2010 (

3549:

sfnp error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFRaghavan,_War_and_Peace_in_Modern_India2010 (

3408: 3385: 3345: 3329: 3272: 3236: 3220: 2903: 2864: 2778: 2721: 2690: 2652: 2631: 2604: 2597: 2578: 2574: 2547: 2508: 2502: 2471: 2391: 2357: 2330: 2326: 2286: 2268: 2138: 2091: 2087: 2027: 1988: 1878: 1847: 1843: 1787: 1764: 1760: 1717: 1671: 1455: 1400: 1315: 1286: 1269: 1251: 1215:

that you believe is violated by including Map 8 on page 139 of Hoffman (1990) directly?

1206: 1187: 1157: 1131: 1127: 1099: 1068: 963: 934: 915: 890: 4469:, in two sheets, which both the Chinese and Indians have published at a reduced scale 5725: 3838: 3500: 3498: 3174: 2260: 1984: 1441:

T. S. Murty, one of the Indian officials involved in the border negotiations, wrote:

1420: 1325:

Attempting to use fine details like coordinates based on visually copying the map is

1237: 1105: 1031: 911: 5561: