Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Doklam Plateau - India, Bhutan and China Stand-Off

Discussion in 'Defence Analysis' started by Bloom 17, Jul 3, 2017.

  1. Bloom 17

    Bloom 17 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2017
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    393
    Country Flag:
    India
    Sunday, July 2, 2017
    Doklam Plateau - India, Bhutan and China Stand-Off[/paste:font]

    As I write this, India finds itself in a border stand-off with China. But unlike other times when India and China squared off due to difference in ‘perception’ of Line of Actual Control (LAC) along their vast border from eastern Ladakh to Arunachal Pradesh, the present stand-off is because of Chinese incursion in a region which is disputed territory between China and Bhutan. India has got involved because development in this area has serious security ramifications for India.
    However, none of the reports barring one (Eyeball-to-eyeball in the Himalayas – Indian Express – Major Joshi-June 30, 2017) gives correct information about the geographical region where this stand-off has taken place and likely reason for this new conflict. Even the report by Manoj Joshi only gives a broad outline of the area.
    The objective of this report is to understand the boundary issue, claims of either party (China and Bhutan), geography in the area and Indian sensitivities. The thrust of this write-up is to clear the ambiguity about the exact area where present stand-off is taking place. And why India is reacting much more strongly – to the extent of helping to keep PLA out of Bhutanese territory.
    Story so far – Confusion!
    When the news story broke, it spoke about Chinese removing IA bunkers in Tri-Junction Area after IA prevented the Chinese from undertaking road construction activity. These reports mentioned certain key areas like Tri-junction, Dhoka La and Doklam Plateau.

    This caused confusion because if you look at map on the Google Earth, these areas are not contiguous. Have a look at the map below. I’ve marked position of Dhoka La, India (Sikkim)-Bhutan-China (Chumbi Valley) boundary tri-junction and Doklam Plateau (as shown on Google Earth). Doklam Plateau from Tri-junction is about 30 km as the crow flies while Dhoka La is about 5 km south of boundary tri-junction.
    [​IMG]
    Source: Google Earth
    So, a question arises – If the Chinese were building a road in the Doklam Plateau on China-Bhutan border, how did the Indian Army stop their work? And how does the boundary tri-junction area and Dhoka La come into picture?
    Bhutan-China border dispute
    As per Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB), there are four areas of boundary alignment dispute between China and Bhutan. However, as per the Chinese, there are 7 such areas of boundary dispute. It is this mismatch in number and extent of disputed areas which has led to the present stand-off.
    I’m not getting into the entire Bhutan-China boundary issue but will restrict myself to the current area of conflict.
    As per the statement of King of Bhutan in National Assembly, there are four[1] areas under dispute:



    1. Up to 89 sq km in Doklam are under dispute (along Gamochen at the border, to the river divide at Batangla and Sinchela, and down to the Amo Chhu River)
    2. Approximately 180 sq km in Sinchulumpa and Gieu are under dispute. The border line stretches from Langmarpo Zam along the river up to Docherimchang, through the river divide to Gomla, along the river divide to Pangkala, and finally down to the Dramana River.
    3. Starting from Dramana, along the border line up to Zingula, and along the line of river divide down to Gieu Chhu River, and finally to Lungkala
    4. Starting from the middle of Pasamlum, along the border line and the river divide to Dompala and Neula, going from Neula along the border line and the river divide to Kurichhu Tshozam, along the river divide to Genla then to Mela, and go all the way to the east.

    Point (1) above is centred along and east of the India-Bhutan-China boundary tri-junction area. Point (2) refers to area marked as Doklam Plateau on Google Earth and shows as disputed with broken line. As per the RGOB, there is no contiguity between areas covered under Point (1) and Point (2) while Chinese claim an intermediate area as well. This makes the Chinese claims much larger than Bhutanese interpretation and root cause of present conflict.
    I’ve not been able to access any corresponding maps from the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) which show the alignment of the above area. As Manoj Joshi writes in his Indian Express article, “However, none of these features are visible on publicly available maps and it requires an effort to locate them.” I’ve created some indicative maps after searching through multiple sources and will come to that shortly.

    And while I could not find any RGOB Map showing disputed areas, I did come across a Chinese map which shows the 7 disputed areas as per them. Please see the map below:
    [​IMG]
    Source: http://www.bhutannewsservice.org/bhutan-china-border-mismatch/

    Areas with red and blue line indicated disputed areas as per the Chinese. Blue line indicated border alignment as per RGOB while red-line indicated the alignment of Bhutanese boundary as per the Chinese.
    The disputed area in west is the center of present conflict. And as per the Chinese, there are three major boundary alignment issues within this sector. Compared to this, RGOB claims only two non-contiguous areas of dispute. As the Chinese map shows, Chinese claim is much larger than what the RGOB considers. The details of the three disputed areas in this region are as follows:


    1. Mountain ridge from Batang La to Merukla/Merugla upto Sinchela
    2. The mountain ridge from Sinchela to River Amo; along River Amo from River Amo to its confluence with River Langmarpo;
    3. Region along the River Langmarpo from the confluence of River Lang-marpo and River Amo up to the confluence of Docherimchang; along River Rong from River Docherimchang confluence to Gomla; Gomla ridge from Gomla to Pankala, and Pankala ridge from Pankala to Dramana ridge; Dramana ridge from Dramana to River Tromo and River Zhiu confluence, River Zhiu from River Tromo- River Zhiu confluence to Lungkala;
    Source: http://www.bhutannewsservice.org/bhutan-china-border-mismatch/

    If you look at the RGOB and Chinese interpretation of boundary dispute, you realize that Point (1) in both the interpretation of boundary alignment is same. But in case of the Chinese, point (2) and (3) taken together, create a contiguous disputed area and vastly expand the area which they claim as part of Tibet. From Bhutanese perspective, point (3) in Chinese claim is same as per their understanding but is not contiguous to area under Point (1).
    The blow-out map below shows how the Chinese claims are with respect to present alignment:
    [​IMG]
    I’ve tried to create the Chinese claim line on a Google Earth map by using features I could identify. These features correspond to those mentioned in Chinese claims as mentioned earlier.
    [​IMG]
    Source: Google Earth
    The Chinese are using their usual tactics – of claiming a ridge-line/water-shed (and corresponding mountain passes) which gives them depth and allows them to control west-east or vice versa movement. In case of Sino-Indian boundary in eastern Ladakh, Chinese claim line lie along ridge to west of Indian claim line. And controls all the important mountain passes which can facilitate east-west or vice-versa movement. In this case, the boundary envelope has been pushed east with the following objectives:

    1. Give depth to Chinese positions in the Chumbi Valley. As has been widely reported, Chumbi Valley is extremely narrow with steep mountain sides on either side. This gives very less rea estate to PLA to station troops and provisions. Further, this puts them at disadvantage vis-à-vis India position on ridges to the west along Sikkim-Tibet border.
    2. The present main access route into Chumbi Valley and Yadong is S-204. Given the depth of Chumbi Valley and its alignment, is susceptible to India interdiction. Chinese can consider developing a loop in S-204 which is further east and passes through the claimed area. This will give it relatively better protection against Indian fire assault.
    3. Most important gain is towards south part – opens up the restricted funnel of Chumbi Valley and brings it that much closer to Indian Siliguri Corridor. Indian area in Siliguri corridor comes under long range artillery fire from within Chumbi Valley

    Doklam Plateau

    The present stand-off is in the Doklam Plateau area, region marked in blue circle in the previous map. If we revisit the Chinese boundary alignment claim in this region, it mentions the following:

    • Mountain ridge from Batang La to Merukla/Merugla upto Sinchela
    • The mountain ridge from Sinchela to River Amo; along River Amo from River Amo to its confluence with River Langmarpo


    The map below highlights these areas and alignment:
    [​IMG]
    Source: Google Earth
    In case Chinese assertions are expected, then India-China-Bhutan boundary will be at Gymochen. And Dokal La, which is presently on border between India (Sikkim) and Bhutan, will become a pass on Sino-Indian border.
    A closer look at the satellite imagery shows that a road leads up from the Chumbi Valley to Senche La, crosses over to Bhutanese side, runs parallel to the Merug La-Senche La ridge line and then crosses back into Chumbi Valley at Merug La. A part of this road/track from Senche La also comes towards Doka La. It seems that Chinese have extended tracks from the Merug La-Sinche La ridge line onto the Doklam Plateau. And over the years, have slowly creeped forward claiming and controlling larger part of the plateau.
    The map below shows various roads/tracks in the region:

    [​IMG]







    Source: Wikimapia
    Present Issue
    What seems to be happening is that Chinese are trying to further expand their hold on the plateau. From the available news, it seems that Chinese were trying to create concrete roads in the region. The maps already show tracks which came about as Chinese saw no objection from RGOB. And in typical Chinese fashion, they’ll now claim existence of these tracks as proof of ownership – apart from historical claims.
    Any further advance in this area poses security threat to India. Working in tandem with RBA, Indian Army seems to have stopped this construction activity within Doklam Plateau. This partly explains the apoplectic response from the Chinese – Indian Army is operating on Bhutanese territory and working in tandem with RBA to prevent further Chinese construction activity. Hence, the repeated references to this area having nothing to do with Sikkim-Tibet border and tri-junction.
    India simply cannot afford to have Chinese control the Doklam plateau. And has to prevent any further occupation creep beyond what has already happened. If the Chinese were to occupy the Doklam Plateau and place the boundary on ridge-line going east from Gymochen towards Amo-Chu river, they control a dominating ridge-line which overlooks Indian territory across Bhutan.
    The map below gives distance from this ridge-line towards location in Sikkim (a major communication axis) and a location in West Bengal.
    [​IMG]



    I will update the analysis as and when more news becomes available.
    Please point out mistakes, if any, and share any relevant information which can improve the analysis.

    source - http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2017/
     
    Grevion, surya kiran, Art90 and 5 others like this.
  2. bharathp

    bharathp Developers Guild Developers -IT and R&D

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2016
    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    1,384
    Country Flag:
    India
    amazing work put in by the guy.. will be tracking his blog too.
     
    Hellfire likes this.
  3. Bloom 17

    Bloom 17 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2017
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    393
    Country Flag:
    India
    He writes an article or two per year, but good once
     
    bharathp and Hellfire like this.
  4. Indian Jatt

    Indian Jatt Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    201
    Country Flag:
    India
    I heard we have moved in more men?
    This looks serious, may God protect our men and country, if it is war, then let it be, we will fight too...jai hind, vande mataram
     
    Hellfire likes this.
  5. Bloom 17

    Bloom 17 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2017
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    393
    Country Flag:
    India
    Max another two weeks. After than you won't read about it even in a weekly tabloid.
     
    Hellfire likes this.
  6. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,803
    Likes Received:
    15,564
    Country Flag:
    India
    In another thread on this topic, I had written that this area is a trap for China and not India as we can very swiftly cut off this area and trap all PLA units within it. The move by China to widen this strip of land shows that they too have realised that this is actually a trap for them and unless they have more width, they will never be able to reach siliguri. Any effort to reach siliguri will need Bhutan's territory during war, which means war with India and Bhutan, so china is playing a dirty game, the area they need to protect their forces and make a dash for Siliguri, they are claiming it as their own. here we have a strong warning about what Chinese designs are, they will try and cut off siliguri.
     
  7. Indian Jatt

    Indian Jatt Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    201
    Country Flag:
    India
    I hope so, have friends in all services, young blood you know....:mods:
     
    Golden_Rule and Bloom 17 like this.
  8. Satendra kumar

    Satendra kumar FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2017
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    12
    Country Flag:
    Fiji
    The tri border disputes should be addressed peacefully obligation within the framework of international line of control the United Nations Charter where international Laws and all convention are assigned.
     
  9. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,803
    Likes Received:
    15,564
    Country Flag:
    India
    What if Chinese do not recognise them? Has China recognised or accepted ICJ ruling about SCS? In this case also they have flouted the 1890 & 2012 treaty.
     
    Golden_Rule and Agent_47 like this.
  10. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,027
    Likes Received:
    4,932
    Country Flag:
    India
    Rajat Pandit| TNN | Aug 9, 2017

    NEW DELHI: The defence ministry on Tuesday sought an "urgent" additional allocation of Rs 20,000 crore for military modernization as well as day-to-day operating costs from the Centre, in a move that comes when Indian and Chinese troops continue to remain locked in a tense standoff near the Sikkim-Bhutan-Tibet tri-junction since mid-June.

    Sources said MoD officials led by defence secretary Sanjay Mitra told their finance ministry counterparts in a meeting that the Rs 20,000 crore was urgently required in addition to the Rs 2.74 lakh crore allocated for defence in the 2017-2018 budget.


    "The MoD officials said almost 50% of the capital and 41% of the revenue outlays in the defence budget had already been utilized in the ongoing fiscal. Moreover, the new customs duty on arms imports had also burnt a big hole in the defence budget. The finance ministry said the MoD request will be examined at the earliest," said a source.

    As it is, the Rs 1,72,774 crore revenue outlay for day-to-day costs and salaries by far outstrips the capital one of Rs 86,488 crore for new weapon systems and modernization in the existing 2017-18 defence budget. Moreover, the bulk of the capital outlay is earmarked for "committed liabilities or instalments" for deals inked earlier. Incidentally, the Rs 2.74 lakh crore outlay works out to just 1.56% of the projected GDP, the lowest such figure since the 1962 war with China.

    As was first reported by TOI last month, the armed forces have projected a requirement of Rs 26.84 lakh crore ($416 billion) over the next five years under the 13th Defence Plan (2017-2022) to ensure requisite military modernization and maintenance to take on the collusive threat from Pakistan and China as well as to safeguard India's expanding geostrategic interests.

    The armed forces, in fact, want the annual defence budget to progressively reach at least 2% of the GDP for their operational requirements. The actual defence budgets, however, have shown a marked trend towards declining modernization budgets, unspent funds and a skewed revenue to capital expenditure ratio, which have meant the Army, Navy and IAF continue to grapple with critical operational gaps on several fronts.

    If the Army has operational deficiencies in artillery guns, infantry weapons, light helicopters, night-fighting capabilities and the like, the IAF does not have enough fighters, mid-air refuellers, AWACS (airborne warning and control systems) and drones. The Navy, in turn, is struggling with shortages in the number of submarines, multi-role helicopters and minesweepers.


    Given the "operational military hollowness", the defence ministry after the Uri terror attack in September last year had delegated emergency financial powers to the three Services to procure ammunition and spares to ensure they had enough reserves for "10 days of intense fighting".

    This had led to contracts worth Rs 23,700 crore being inked with countries like Russia, Israel and France so that the armed forces could maintain adequate stockpiles and combat readiness for "short and intense wars".

    The Army, which did not even hold one-third of its authorized war wastage reserves (WWR) for 40 days of intense fighting, had identified 46 different types of ammunition, 22 armaments, half a dozen mines as well as spares for 10 weapon systems ranging from tanks to artillery guns as "critical requirements". This together would amount to roughly Rs 35,000-40,000 crore, as was reported earlier by TOI.

    Since then, the Army has inked 19 contracts worth Rs 12,000 crore, which includes 11 kinds of ammunition. Of them, 10 contracts are with Russian companies for supply of engines and 125mm APFSDS (armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot) ammunition for its T-90S and T-72 tanks to Konkurs anti-tank guided missiles and Smerch rockets.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ess-of-armed-forces/articleshow/59975481.cms?


    @Abingdonboy @lca-fan @Gessler @nair @Bloom 17 @Ankit Kumar 001 @LonewolfSandeep @GuardianRED @GSLV Mk III @Grevion @PARIKRAMA @vstol @Lion of Rajputana @InfoWarrior @WhyCry @Kalmuahlaunda and others.



    Pertinent to note is the fact that majority of stuff is being ordered which should have been 'indigenised' or already was supposed to have been produced locally under license.
     
  11. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,027
    Likes Received:
    4,932
    Country Flag:
    India
    PARIKRAMA, nair and Angel Eyes like this.
  12. Abingdonboy

    Abingdonboy Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    2,755
    Likes Received:
    12,321
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Doesn't it seem like it is the same issues coming up again and again, since I have been following defence matters (from around 2010) the same equipment keeps getting brought up:

    - Fighters (IAF)
    - AARs (IAF)
    - RSH/LUH (IA/IAF)
    - Personal weapons (IA)
    - NVDs (IA)
    - Arty (IA)
    - NMRH (IN)
    - Subs (IN)
    - Minesweepers (IN)

    It seems no matter what the services claim to be doing these core areas are never addressed, year after year they keep coming back with the same list of deficiencies.


    The more things change, the more they stay the same.....
     
    Grevion, PARIKRAMA, Bloom 17 and 2 others like this.
  13. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,027
    Likes Received:
    4,932
    Country Flag:
    India
    Another "Make in India" project. The OFB and DPSUs are making tall claims and failing miserably. The only thing Make in India here is the "Money Making"!!!!

    Every clown, from the top till bottom, was expecting challenges to security on multiple fronts post-Uri. Yet, the defence allocation was kept routine and the audit on production and system analysis of the functioning of DPSUs was not undertaken. Result: 'Urgent' purchases being made again (after one cycle done post-Uri) and since everything is needed on 'expedited' timeline, exorbitant costs will be paid. Who is making money here?
     
    Grevion, Art90, PARIKRAMA and 6 others like this.
  14. Hellfire

    Hellfire Devil's Advocate Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,027
    Likes Received:
    4,932
    Country Flag:
    India
    Because nothing is being done on ground, save for tall promises.
     
    Grevion and PARIKRAMA like this.
  15. Sweet-detention

    Sweet-detention FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    59
    Country Flag:
    India
    They take these things seriously only when some external threat comes.
     

Share This Page