Talk:2013 Depsang standoff

Accuracy and neutrality dispute May 2013

Nightbat has begun to discuss this on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China page and the discussion should really continue here. So I'm doing a rough job of creating this talk page and copying Nightbat's comments here.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I am the editor that created the 2013 Daulat Beg Oldi Incident. In my opinion I have provided numerous reliable sources from mainstream media that show that the article is notable and neutral. According to the following articles from major publications - DNA India article, Indian Express article, Deccan Herald article, Economic Times article the matter is not a minor incident. Especially see this Firstpost.com article that clearly states that this is the first time since 1986 that Chinese troops have infiltrated into Indian territory and stayed put. Can provide numerous more examples from mainstream media. I therefore feel, with due respect to Mkdw, that (s)he is unduly flagging the article as "disputed", "non-notable", etc. despite ample evidence to the contrary. Would therefore seek another opinion on the matter. Danke. Nightbat^talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with my editor friend here,even though the incident was a minor incident for the world media, it was a major one for India & the Indian media. So i request you to unflag the article. --yohannvt (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You two are confusing notability with neutrality. These are two different things. I never made the argument that this incident wasn't notable; it should have an article. The argument that I am making is that the article is not neutral; it disproportionally over-represents the Indian view of the situation and under-represents the Chinese view of the situation. This clearly shows in source selection, word choice, and article structure. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I did search for Arguments from the Chinese side but did not find any,one of its reasons must be that since China is having Major border disputes with many other countries, they may not have paid attention to this incident.So for neutrality, I will put International media viewpoint references.--yohannvt (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have founds some articles that attempt to analyze the issue from both sides. Their perspectives are very somewhat different from the current tone of the article, but I will attempt to work them in.Ferox Seneca (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Please let me know if you believe my recent edits are sufficient for me to remove the "disputed" banner.Ferox Seneca (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I have made a minor edit of changing the heading of Bibliography to Notes, because it sounded more appropriate.Hopefully this will be the last edit to this article. An excellent editing done by Ferox Seneca which helped a lot in remove the disputed banner.Yohannvt (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

In the other context but relevant to this article, I found this recent reference Depsang Bulge incursion accidental - Chinese military thinktank Academy of Military Science (People's Republic of China) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Depsang-Bulge-incursion-accidental-Chinese-military-thinktank-says/articleshow/21088756.cms useful to be added here with a brief note, let me know your concerns. U61398 (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Done.Ferox Seneca (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Page retitling

File:Raki-Nal-LSIB-vs-Chinese-claims.png

LAC contestation at Depsang Nala-Raki Nala junction (Y junction / Bottleneck)

The title Daulat Beg Oldi incident is confusing and is actually wrong. Nothing happened at Daulat Beg Oldi. There was an incursion and a standoff (not an "incident") at the southern end of the Depsang Plains at the Raki Nala - Depsang Nala junction. There is a similar standoff today at the same location as I write.

It might have been called "Daulat Beg Oldi incident" at the time because the media didn't know the geography of the area and an incursion was thought of as an "incident". But now we know better. So unless there are any objections, I would like to rename this to 2013 Depsang standoff. Here are some scholarly sources that use precisely that terminology.

• Nyachu, Deldan Kunzes Angmo (July–December 2013), "The Depsang Standoff at the India-China Border along the LAC: View from Ladakh", Himalayan and Central Asian Studies, 17 (3/4) – via ProQuest{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
• Manoj Joshi, Making sense of the Depsang incursion, 7 May 2013.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Do we know what really happened in 2013?

The Mouth of Depsang Bulge in 2020

The whole of Depsang Bulge, and what is left of it, or not

The deal struck in 2013 looked surreal. They would withdraw from the standoff if India demolished "bunkers" (apparently a tin shed) 250 km away in Chumar (see also Chepzi).

An article in Rediff at that time said:

After keeping their flag flying deep inside Indian territory for over two weeks, the Chinese army went back to their nearest base camp extracting an assurance that the Indian troops which had been patrolling the area unhindered till the other day shall not enter the area any more.

I have no idea how he knows this. The author claims to be a "security analyst".

But the current situation in the Depsang Bulge makes it increasingly likely that he was right. We still have the Chinese troops blocking the Indian patrols at the bottleneck. Further, we are told that they come in vehicles. The map claims that there is a continuous track road for the Chinese till the bottleneck. The border the Chinese editors are claiming on OpenStreetMap is basically a stone's throw away from the DS-DBO Road. You can easily imagine the Chinese soldiers sitting on ridge tops and throwing peanut shells at the Indian vehicles passing by. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

What is Raki Nala?

In January 2020, before the present standoff, voidvector added "Tiannan River" to the infobox, thereby making it appear as if Raki Nala and Tiannan River meant the same thing. The coordinates seemed to have been added by somebody by measuring 30 km. from DBO along the main road. (The current coordinates are in the vicinity of the LAC, as marked by the LSIB dataset and used in Google Maps).

But it is the equation Raki Nala = Tiannan River that is now turning out to be problematic. To make things clear, here is the overall Burtsa Nala, which is obtained by the joining of two streams: one from the north (Depsang Nala), and one from the east (the Chinese "Tiannan River"). The combined stream flows west and drains into the Murgo Nala.

If we equate Raki Nala with the Tiannan River, we can't make sense of many statements in the article as well as the sources.

The rival troops are actually positioned only 100 to 200 metre apart in the face-off site at Raki Nala in the Depsang Bulge area...

If Raki Nala is supposed to mean the entire stretch of the west-flowing Tiannan River, what is meant by "at Raki Nala"? It could be anywhere along its 30-km stretch.

The face-off site in the Raki Nala was located 15 km east of Burste [Burtsa] where an Indo-Tibetan Border Police post is positioned.

This appears to give a more precise location along the Tiannan River valley but it is deceptive. The driving distance from Burtsa to the LAC is 9 km. So, 15 km is quite a bit further beyond the LAC.

A much better informed source (R. N. Ravi) wrote this:

They [Chinese] built a 20 km motorable road along Jeevan Nallah in 2010 and 15 km long motorable road along Raki Nallah from JAK II to GR 626516 in 2011-- both on the Indian side in the Depsang Plain without a scintilla of resistance.

He is talking about the southern one in this bunch of roads. It is 15 miles instead of 15 km, but that kind of error is quite common. But, notice that the vast majority of this road is not along the Tiannan River! The majority of it runs along a feeder stream that comes down from the Depsang Plains (in the north) and it is expected to be mostly dry because it doesn't originate in snow-capped mountains.

Another version of the statement was:

By 2011 the Chinese built 30 km motorable roads on the Indian side of the LAC originating from JAK II/ JAK I area along Raki Nallah cutting across the Indian patrol line and culminating at GR 626516 (35.14886°N 78.10627°E / 35.14886; 78.10627–35.14886°N 78.10627°E / 35.14886; 78.10627) in the Depsang Plains.

The coordinates are the two corners of the map grid that "GR 626516" refers to. It is near the LAC. This area has now been called "Bottleneck" or "Y-junction" and there were plenty of references to it as well as the Raki Nala during the 2020-2022 standoff. Praveen Swami writes:

[From the Bottleneck], Indian patrol lines that head north, along the Raki river, to Patrol Point 10, and then turn east and south to Point 11, 11A and then Point 12. For Indian soldiers, the positions involve a 48-hour hike, over brutal terrain.

His article also gives a map, where only the feeder stream from the north is marked as "Raki Nala".

In 2013, the Chinese had managed to complete a road behind the Bottleneck area in what is known as the Raki Nala region.

This suggests that the only the feeder stream is being referred to as the Raki Nala, and no part of the Tiannan River.

Given this prevailing terminology, I suggest that we modify our content to refer to only the north-south feeder stream as the Raki Nala. Tiannan River can be referred to as "Burtsa Nala", which is its traditional name. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

That was a mistake on my part. I tried reverting it back. Might have missed some.

I remember the Chinese news article referred to "Tiannan River" while English article referred to the English/Indian name. Initially I thought they were the same, but after some investigation via maps, I realized each side could be referring to different rivers/valleys -- one closer to each side. I don't remember all the details, currently don't have time to dig it up. --Voidvector (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

References