Talk:Dhola Post

Khinzemane location

The Indian government has declared the coordinates of the location it calls "Khinzemane" in 1960.^[1]

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

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.

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 here. 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).

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 grazing ground.

Unless there are any other objections, I will correct the OSM Location map as per this location, and reinstate it on the main page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

McMahon Line location

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.^[2] (I don't know how he knows this. It seems to be a gueestimate.) 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 Sumdorong Chu 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 screenshot on ImgBB.

This is consistent with the Indian government communications. For example:

Traditionally as well as according to Treaty Map the boundary runs along Thagla Ridge north of Mankha Chuthangmu valley [Namkha Chu valley] and this position has been accepted in the past.^[3]

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

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 miles north of the correct location of the McMahon Line on the ground.^[2]

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.

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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• India, Ministry of External Affairs, ed. (1962), Report of the Officials of the Governments of India and the People's Republic of China on the Boundary Question, Government of India Press
  • Indian Report: Part 1 (PDF); Part 2 (PDF); Part 3 (PDF); Part 4 (PDF)
  • Chinese report: Part 1 (PDF); Part 2 (PDF); Part 3 (PDF);

Section break

@Kautilya3: Just so I understand your definition of WP:NPOV, according to you,

Dhola Post was a border post set up by the Indian Army in June 1962, in the Namka Chu river valley, in a border area of Tawang that was disputed by China and India (and is still disputed).

is a "neutral point of view," but

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 McMahon Line and south of the Thagla Ridge.

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

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

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

Please explain to me why your language satisfies WP:NPOV while mine does not.Erik-the-red (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That is already explained it the quotation I gave above: "the [McMahon] line lay on the Thagla ridge despite its erroneous depiction on the map". Your wording that it is north of the McMahon Line is choosing one interpretation over the other in Wikipedia voice. That is not WP:NPOV. And, I have noted that your loose-mouthed shenanigans continue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: 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 Government of India is not WP:NPOV by any honest definition of "neutrality."Erik-the-red (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: 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 as:

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 1914 McMahon Line and south of the Thagla Ridge.

If there is some language that you prefer because in your mind, you are the ultimate arbiter of WP:NPOV, I will accept any change as long as it clarifies that Dhola Post was set up north of the McMahon Line as shown on the treaty map of 1914 and south of the Thagla Ridge.Erik-the-red (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

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 the McMahon Line lay, but nobody has said that there were multiple "McMahon Lines". So, the phrase "1914 McMahon Line" is not at all helpful. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Maybe you should reread what you quoted again:

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 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.^[2]

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 WP:NPOV. 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."

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 be?

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 choosing, then that's just another example of your many instances of dishonesty and gaslighting.Erik-the-red (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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 WP:OR, 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 Wikipedia's job to provide them. We just summarise what the scholarly sources say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: 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 the map."

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 go:

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 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. From the Indian perspective McMahon's line had made poor topographical sense in some places, because of limited knowledge of the terrain in 1914. 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 some of their posts accordingly.^[3]

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?

Or would you prefer Raghavan, sahib? No problem. Here you go:

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 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.^[2]

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 1914?

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 1914."Erik-the-red (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Both Hoffmann and Raghavan are discussing China's opinion and Indian perspective, 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 WP:OR and WP:POV.

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 apostrophe-s and the non-capitalisation of "line") and Raghavan is calling it the "treaty map".

But the more important issue is the WP:WEIGHT. 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 Chinese contested the boundary 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 third point in the sequence, not the first.

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.^[4] Even the British-drawn boundary line 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 chose to make this an issue.

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 location of the places and terrain features indicated.... In the case of Dhola the coordinates [of 1914] would work to the advantage of Tibet, but in other places the Indian boundary would be advanced further north [of the watershed].^[5]

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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The article introduction currently states

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 McMahon Line (as drawn on the treaty map of 1914) and south of the Thagla Ridge.^[6][7]

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 should have been drawn. If you still believe that this is a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:OR or any other policy, I am happy to follow the admins' suggestion of resolution through RfC with the question: Does "the McMahon Line" mean the line marked on the treaty map of 1914? As a reminder, the question is based on your opinion:

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.

Erik-the-red (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. 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 1914. Therefore my answer is yes.

My understanding of the no answer is that the Government of India believes that in certain areas, the line marked on the map is erroneously depicted; and therefore, the no answer holds that "the McMahon Line" means "India's interpretation of the alignment of the McMahon Line"^[1] (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 does not change that "the McMahon Line" still refers to the line marked on the map by McMahon in 1914. Erik-the-red (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• No. "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). Alastair Lamb states, for example, "The main British gain from the Simla Conference was the delimitation of the McMahon Line, the boundary along the crest of the Assam Himalayas from Bhutan to Burma, by means of an exchange of Anglo-Tibetan notes."^[2] (And he does not even mention the map at this stage.) In another book he states: "it is quite clear from the text of the notes that they were to some extent provisional. It was expressly understood that the boundary shown on the map might have to be modified in the light of subsequent information..."^[3] 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. Wim van Eekelen points out, "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 qualification."^[4] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

My understanding of your no answer is that you believe "the McMahon Line" is based on the "Anglo-Tibetan notes" exchanged at the 1914 Simla Conference as opposed to the "map" accompanying the notes. Setting aside that you have previously cited Hoffmann as well as Raghavan (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:

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 an Indo­-Tibetan border, the McMahon Line, as indicated on an attached map 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. The McMahon-­Lonchen Shatra notes were not communicated to the Chinese; and they constitute a transaction quite distinct from the Simla Convention.^[5]

Therefore, consistent with Hoffmann and Raghavan, Lamb defines "the McMahon Line" as "an Indo-Tibetan border as indicated on an attached map" during a conference at Simla in 1914 (or more concisely, the line marked on the treaty map of 1914). Lamb further states that the "McMahon-Lonchen Shatra notes" (I hope we can both agree these are synonymous with "Anglo-Tibetan notes") "constitute a transaction quite distinct from the Simla Convention." Therefore, if you are relying on Lamb to support a no answer that "the McMahon Line" is based on the "Anglo-Tibetan notes" exchanged at the 1914 Simla Conference as opposed to the "map" accompanying the notes, Lamb does not support such reasoning. Erik-the-red (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Perhaps a more basic point is that "line" in "McMahon Line" is used figuratively to mean a boundary. It does not mean a physical line drawn on a map. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on my reading, none of the sources you have relied upon (Hoffmann, Raghavan) or rely upon now (Lamb) state that "notes" are the much more important part of the 1914 agreement than the map. In fact, contrary to your current assertion, you yourself previously acknowledged above that based on your reading, 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.

So I fail to see how any of these sources support a claim that the "notes" which did not give a textual description of the boundary are somehow much more important than the "map," which actually delineated the boundary at a scale of 8 miles to the inch (1:500,000)^[6]. Erik-the-red (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, most of the sources presented asserts on a map along with exchange of notes in 1914 Simla Conference. USaamo ^(t@lk) 12:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

USaamo, can you please specify which sources you are referring to? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Without speaking for USaamo, I note that the user wrote the sources presented. That can only refer to a limited number of options:

1. the sources I presented in the Additional Comments (Hoffmann and Raghavan, both of which you have previously used), and neither of which you have contested here in the RfC.
2. the sources you presented in your reply (Lamb and van Eekelen), one of which (Lamb) actually said that the McMahon Line is an Indo­-Tibetan border as indicated on an attached map^[7], which contradicts your no answer.
3. or all the sources presented by both of us so far.

Erik-the-red (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid you are indeed speaking for USaamo. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That's your opinion. It's also irrelevant because regardless of which sources presented USaamo referred to (Hoffmann and Raghavan, Lamb and van Eekelen, all of the above), none of them supports your no answer that "the McMahon Line" is based on the "notes" (which you yourself admit did not give a textual description of the boundary) rather than the "map." Erik-the-red (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I've commented in plane language that sources presented 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:

• (India and China: The Battle between Soft and Hard Power by Dr. S K Shah, p 256)
• (Indian foreign policy and the border dispute with China by Willem Frederik Eekelen, p 170)
• (1962: A View from the Other Side of the Hill by P J S Sandhu, Vinay Shankar, G G Dwivedi, p 27)
• (Select Documents on India's Foreign Policy and Relations, 1947-1972, Volumes 1-2 by Angadipuram Appadorai, p 662, 671)
• (Eastern World, Volume 17, 1963, p 14)
• (Chinese Aggression in War and Peace: Letters of the Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, p 21)
• (China, India, Pakistan: Documents on the foreign relations of Pakistan by K. Sarwar Hasan, Khalida Qureshi, p 253)
• (Paths of Peace: Studies on the Sino-Indian Border Dispute by T. S. Murty, p 310)

USaamo ^(t@lk) 18:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Your comment says "a map along with exchange of notes in 1914 Simla Conference" defines the McMahon Line. But the RfC is asking whether the map alone defines it. So it would seem that you are really saying no. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not what the RfC is asking. The RfC is asking, quote, Does "the McMahon Line" mean the line marked on the treaty map of 1914? Given that you have previously argued that there is a substantive difference between "the McMahon Line" and "McMahon's line", I believe it is best to keep the RfC question exactly as it is written. Erik-the-red (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: 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 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.

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... USaamo ^(t@lk) 21:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes (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 defined 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 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 primarily refers to the line drawn on a particular map in 1914. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  1. 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. Encyclopedia Britannica).
  2. 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 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.
  3. 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:

     According to the original McMahon Line map, in two sheets, which both the Chinese and Indians have published at a reduced scale [...]
     — Lamb, Alastair (1966), 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, Routledge & K. Paul, p. 581

     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 these referred to a map, in two sheets, which was sealed and exchanged with the letters. The boundary - which came to be known as the McMahon Line - was drawn on this map.
     — Gupta, Karunakar (1971). "The McMahon Line 1911-45: The British Legacy". The China Quarterly. 47: 521–545. JSTOR 652324.

     The McMahon Line, which delineates the 850-mile Indo-Tibetan border between Bhutan and Burma, was drawn in 1914 in connection with a tripartite British-Tibetan-Chinese conference held at Simla, India, to discuss Tibetan affairs.
     — "The McMahon Line". Central Intelligence Agency. 9 September 1959. Retrieved 11 August 2020.

     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 on a map drawing a boundary between north-eastern India and Tibet.
     — van Eekelen, W. F. (1967). "Simla Convention and McMahon Line". Journal of The Royal Central Asian Society. 54 (2): 179–184. doi:10.1080/03068376708731991.

— MarkH₂₁^talk 03:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Additional Comments

For background, consider the following two sources: Erik-the-red (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

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. 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. Among its features was the placement of the Tawang tract within Indian territory.^[8]

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. 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 border along the highest line of the Assam Himalaya, and that outlined the boundaries and buffer zones between Tibet and China.^[9]

• Comment: This RfC really should've been posted at Talk:McMahon Line. I've placed a notice there linking to this RfC. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, MarkH21. Erik-the-red (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hoffmann, Steven A. (1990), India and the China Crisis, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-06537-6
• Raghavan, Srinath (2010), War and Peace in Modern India, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-1-137-00737-7

Clarification needed 1

Lt Gen Kaul took over on 4 October 1962 with orders to evict the Chinese from Kameng sector. Using Hoffmann and Raghavan, to start with >>>

(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.

(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.

Details from other references used:

(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.

The written eviction order is also reproduced related written minutes of meeting are reproduced in this book on page 125.

DiplomatTesterMan, 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? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The current version says:

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 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.

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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, 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...

Ministry of Defence
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.
Sd/- (HC Sarin) Joint Secretary 22-9-62

Raghavan says "his sole task would be to force out the PLA from Thagla".... just mentioning Thagla would also simplify things. DTM (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I have put variations of the first sentence in the quote box you have used for easier navigation. Accordingly future sentences can be tackled. DTM (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The previous paragraph says responsibility for Assam Himalaya. I think that would be best, continue using the same phrases. DTM (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

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 orders.

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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, 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.) DTM (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

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.... DTM (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The order

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).

1. 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.
2. 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 September.
3. 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.)
4. The local commanders thought the operation was infeasible.
5. So the Army and the Ministry replaced the commander.
6. 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.
7. So things went on like this until a whole brigade got annihilated and a war began.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

(Converting above to numbered list) Unsaid that under the skirmishes section, only point 7 and the end of point 6 are to be covered. DTM (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarification needed 2 & 3

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. [...] However he was under pressure to act by 10 October. Using Hoffmann and Raghavan, to start with >>>

(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. (nothing in Raghavan about 7 to 9; pp 300)

(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,…

Details from other references used:

(Katoch, 2013; pp 74-96): From October 7 to 9, Gen Kaul was at Dhola and had occasion to see for himself the hopelessness of the task assigned to the Army to evict the Chinses from Thagla. 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. […] 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 Cabinet”. Accordingly, he ordered 2 Rajput to occupy Yumtso La…

(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. […] Kaul apparently was under some sort of pressure to do something (to evict the Chiense) by 10 Oct. Accordingly he ordered 2 RAJPUT to move to Yumstola (16000 feet) on Thagla Ridge…

DTM (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)