Sino-Indian 1962 war: The fall of ‘trust’?

Posted on April 28, 2009
Filed Under Blogging, General | 9 Comments

Indian army struggling at the Himalayas

Indian army at the Himalayas - 1962

My last post on China got me really rave emails accusing me of being partisan, prejudiced and obnoxious. I am so used to it and take it as part and parcel of blogosphere..hehe… :D I hope my Chinese visitors can at least take pride in this article.

I am penning this post not at any cost to intimidate China or India but because of three reasons: 1) The last commenter who spoke of the Indian defeat at the Sino-Indian war. 2) Some of my old mates who failed to apprehend the background of that historic 1962 war which led them to belittle and speak disparagingly about India. 3) My love towards History.

In a nutshell: China won the 1962 Sino Indian war. There was more casuality in the Indian side than the Chinese. India lost over 3,000 soldiers and another 3,000 captured while Chinese only lost 1,400 soldiers and 2 captured. The June – November war led to unilateral ceasefire and also led the Chinese to gain control over disputed regions such as the Aksai Chin area.

I should mention this here that I was not interested by the Chinese winning the war or defeating India, but what intrigued me more was the means by which the victory was gained, including the reasons for the shameful defeat of Indian army. The war is the pristine example of – Chinese willpower and its defying nature at any condition, while also exemplifying India’s blind belief on something called ‘relationship’, ‘trust’ and its ‘unwary’ attitude.

If you ask me the clear reasons for the Indian defeat in the war, here are few but give special emphasis to the third reason:

1) There is a saying that – To guarantee victory, an army should ideally have German generals, British officers, Indian soldiers, American equipment and Italian enemies. The British ruled India close to 100 years but there were little times you notice an Indian general or superior. Indians were only categorised as Soldiers, which gave them little understanding over war, its consequences, planning, strategising etc. When the Britishes left, India was helpless and had to all start from scratch. They lacked all experience.

2) The Chinese story is different as they were prepared to fight in the Himalayas. Many veterans of the Korean war were still in active duty in 1962. Chinese had better intelligence, were better supplied, and fought under more experienced leadership. The Chinese could move their artillery and other supplies with ease, where the Indians could not.

3) Now this is the part, which I want to emphasize here, and is what I consider the reason for the Indian defeat in the war.

- India’s overtrust in China which led to being little wary of a sudden approach by the Chinese army. Some of our army veterans who fought the war say, they were shellshocked when they heard of Chinese having already crossed the border and were very close to capturing the Indian positions. They were stunned because it was unexpected due to India’s or Nehru’s overtrust in China during a specific month when the relationship seemed back to normal and friendly. You know what they say? The Chinese were even close to invading New Delhi.

Immediately after the war our then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was criticized for his ‘pacifist’ relations with China. Nehru believed so much in solving war and deadly combats like Gandhiji – through peace and talks. India’s foreign policy towards China was on the concept of “brotherhood”. India totally failed to anticipate Chinese aggression. Indian generals showed too much of ‘trust’ and ‘courteous’ attitude to China – which led it to face disgraceful defeat.

In fact I would call the Sino-Indian war as the ‘defeat and sundering of trust’. Many Indians view the war as a betrayal of India’s attempts at establishing a long-standing peace with China. The war also put an end to Nehru’s earlier hopes that India and China would form a strong Asian Axis to counteract the increasing influence of the Cold War bloc superpowers. The war however led to India’s policy of weaponisation via indigenous sources and self-sufficiency. Guess what? Immediately after the event, China’s best ally Pakistan knew India was weak and unprepared and must be attacked. This however did not happen. The Indians already learnt their lesson of overtrusting amid the malevolent and vicious groups.

On 3 October, a week before the triggering of the war, Zhou Enlai visited Nehru in New Delhi promising there would be no war. Poor Nehru hardly could imagine that the Chinese army were in the horizon and had already crossed the borders with over 1,000 soldiers. It was only 18 October that India became fully aware that Chinese were preparing for a full attack on India. It was like striking from the back. It is claimed that if a more military-minded man had been in place instead of Nehru, India would have been more likely to have been ready for the threat from China

In fact the Kennedy administration was disturbed by what they considered “blatant Chinese communist aggression against India”. In a May 1963 National Security Council meeting, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and General Maxwell Taylor advised the president to use nuclear weapons should the Americans intervene in such a situation. Kennedy insisted that Washington defend India as it would any ally, saying, “We should defend India, and therefore we will defend India”.

The Chinese military action has been viewed by the United States as part of the Chinese party policy of making use of aggressive wars to settle its border disputes and to distract from its internal issues.

Like I earlier mentioned, India has been totally defeated and the China has proved again their might. However, there are many questions unanswered, including the role of ‘trust’ and the victory of war through ‘peccant’ means in the modern world. Indians are generally regarded as the most hospitable people in the modern society…I want to end this post asking if ‘hospitality’ and ‘trust’ plays any role in the modern kleptocratic, avarice society. What do you think is the best?

Adios ~ SAM

Comments

9 Responses to “Sino-Indian 1962 war: The fall of ‘trust’?”

  1. Biju on April 29th, 2009 3:27 am

    There should be no role for trust between countries. Everybody wants to defeat, win and capture. So even India should follow the same attitude of having this really shrewd mind. We should not bring good morals in war, thats dangerous.

  2. Rocky on April 29th, 2009 5:40 am

    I agree with Biju, no room for trust when occpied by greed.

  3. Rit on April 29th, 2009 8:21 am

    we should follow the policy that was carried by German nazis and British generals, then surely we will be undefeated.

  4. Vijay on April 29th, 2009 11:18 am

    War is war and there should be no sympathy for each other. I would say Nehru was a weak prime minister. If it was someone like Narendra Modi, we would have won the war, for sure.

  5. Goel on April 29th, 2009 5:08 pm

    My opinion here is that we should maintain our good character but also be shrewd and cunning sometimes during the war.

  6. Media makes curry of India, China, Arunachal & Dalai Lama | India Information on November 13th, 2009 5:01 pm

    [...] in India are threatened with a 1962 war repeat. This has apparently created more hate within the Indian community which is now bashing [...]

  7. Tarun on February 1st, 2011 4:02 pm

    Strategy is the keyword here. Totally agree, our jokers lack good understanding of strategy. The real question is .. can a repeat of 62 happen once again? Probably .. are we prepared with 2nd line of defence? No. Can Chinese run into the indian mainland .. no way .. they cant supply noodles all across himalyas for eternity. Nothing to fear … but are we ready? It may come again. I think this young indian generation is ready .. what say you guys?

  8. sg on February 7th, 2011 11:37 pm

    First of all India never expected to be in war as Chian in 1949 wanted to be allies. So less defense was put on the border between them as they were ALLIES supposedy. Secondly India was less than 15 years from independence so they were more concerned about organizing things inside their country rather matters outside of it. The chinese acted were lying swines as they were just wanted some land that India rightfully deserved as they gained independece from the British and were also mad that India provided a safe place for the Dilelama (sorry for spelling). And if China really won, why did they call the cease fire and withdrew from disputed area? China simply lied and was a coward and history proves it

  9. sg on February 7th, 2011 11:37 pm

    First of all India never expected to be in war as China in 1949 wanted to be allies. So less defense was put on the border between them as they were ALLIES supposedy. Secondly India was less than 15 years from independence so they were more concerned about organizing things inside their country rather matters outside of it. The Chinese acted were lying swines as they were just wanted some land that India rightfully deserved as they gained independece from the British and were also mad that India provided a safe place for the Dalai Lama. And if China really won, why did they call the cease fire and withdrew from disputed area? China simply lied and was a coward and history proves it

Leave a Reply