Talk:Kongka Pass

Southernmost point of Xinjiang?

Just using my eyeballs, I'm thinking this may be near the southernmost point of today's Xinjiang. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The border is not formalized in treaty. Current boundary is based on Line of Actual Control, so I don't know if extreme points apply. --Voidvector (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Chinese name vs English name location discrepancy

English article use "Kongka Pass" to signify the border. However, in Chinese, this name is used to signify the location of the border/sentry post, which is fully inside Tibet. While another name Yingjilong (应基隆) is the area closer to the border. (People on OpenStreetMaps associate that with "Kyapsang Tardad", which I am not sure how they relate) You can see the "Kongka Pass vs Yingjilong " in the endpoints of Tibetan Provincial Roads:

• S519 (Hongshan Daban - Konga Pass): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8416265/
• S520 (Larelasi - Yingjilong): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8416261/

Yingjilong is listed on publicly available Chinese maps for Tibet, even though there is nothing there for public to see. --Voidvector (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Number of Indian casualties

There is discrepancy in number of Indian casualties -- the memorial lists 10, but the diplomatic white paper says 9. --Voidvector (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I would go by the memorial. It is presumably listing the facts on the ground, whereas the diplomats likely have partial information (or out of date information). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Highway S520

A satellite view of the highway S520 that goes from Pangong Lake (near Rudok) to Kongka. Pretty impressive. Its official name is supposed to be "日土拉热拉斯—应基隆", which Google translates to "Flights from Riturajeras to Yingjilong".

And also a surprising amount of traffic on it. Why are all these trucks going to Kongka? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"日土" is Rutog, "拉热拉斯" (Pinyin: Larelasi) appears to be a re-transcription of "Lharilhaxing" found in EKI's Place Names Database. It can also be found on the map I linked above, it is also mentioned in a geology paper. --Voidvector (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Voidvector. Huge granites indeed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

What happened then?

and seven were taken prisoner (totaling ten when including the reconnaissance team). - Were they returned? When? Or killed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyMemoryYourHistory (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

"Kongka" (དགུན་ཁ་) means "wintertime" and "La" (ལ་) means "Pass" in Tibetan. However, I couldn't find any citation with this translation, so going to leave it here. --Voidvector (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Issues

• OSM is open source and if I recall correctly, Chinese users have been caught tampering with sensitive details; we cannot cite potentially controversial claims about the LAC from there. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not that bad really because Indian editors also contest their claims. I don't think there is a problem with the lines shown on this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• We are in need of more details. The '56 map was not an official map and Chinese cartographers produced dozens of maps across the 50s which were wildly inconsistent; so, why does the article fixate on it? Because Enlai would claim it to accurately represent the trad. boundaries, three years hence. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Done TrangaBellam (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The "1956 claim line", as India calls it, is extracted from the "Big Map of the People's Republic of China" published in 1956. It was the first official map of PRC. Till then they were claiming to be reprinting old ROC maps. Moreover, Zhou Enlai certified it to Nehru in a letter in 1959 that it was the "correct boundary". I am not sure what the "done" refers to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• We have a massive whitespace problem. I will appreciate help in reducing that. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You need to reload the page after you finish editing, in order to clear the multiple infobox maps from appearing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I realized that. But, there is still some whitespace. What is the issue in not allowing the section of "Kongka Pass incident" to reflow around Map 2 and 3? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Reels

MF-34 FNMP - CRL (The Statesman) TrangaBellam (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Vivek Ahuja

TrangaBellam, I am not in favour of the overuse of Vivek Ahuja, an Indian military source. He can't seem to make up his mind whether it was "two men" or "three men" that went missing. You also mention "negotitations" failing, which I can't find in the source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

His accounts are corroborated by what was reported in contemporary media - I can replace the cites with those from The Hindu and The Statesman. I did spot a couple of minor discrepancies.

As Ahuja notes, the Chinese position took them by surprise but the firefight happened after hours. Both sides engaged in a lot of theatrics and per contemporary reports, Singh even established communications with "stubborn" (in that, they reiterated that Singh and his men shall go back to the "Indian side" without delay) Chinese counterparts to resolve the situation. Why things went downhill is a mystery with each side blaming the other for opening fire but it is obvious that the efforts at resolution had failed. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It is obvious that Karam Singh had no military training and didn't appreciate that he had no chance of winning or even holding ground. The Chinese eventually got tired of it and opened fire. I don't see what else is there to understand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure about Singh but it is not that all of the forward party members were rookies. About three months after the incident, The Hindu quotes unnamed sources in MEA who were puzzled about why none of the men chose to retreat to safety despite being afforded with such an opportunity and some sort of investigation was still underway to assess what transpired at the hill.

I wonder if any of the detained men survives (feeble chance but not impossible either) and if someone has spoken to media, after retirement! I am also interested in how the Chinese media covered it and if some additional details can be gleaned off them but neither can I read Mandarin nor am I acquainted with where to look for old copies of Chinese newspapers. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC

The point is not of experience, but of training. Policemen are not soldiers. I don't know what kind of terms of engagement they were given, but they obviously believed that it was their job to defend the territory. Their decision not to withdraw makes no military sense. But I think Mullik (the IB chief under whom they were operating) was prone to play the game of chicken, which he did until the war broke out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

By the way, the Chinese never admitted that they had soldiers on their side. All their people were consistently called "border guards". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Ahuja has a fuller paper on slideshare.net, which has citations:

• Vivek Ahuja, Military perspective: Genesis of the Sino-Indian border dispute: The Kongka-La Incident, Auburn University, via slideshare.net

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The location of the clash

This hill is called the "Victory Hill" by the Chinese OSM editors. It is a little over 5 miles from Hot Springs, as described by Rowland. It also matches the "two miles west of the [Kongka] pass, on the banks of the Changchenmo river" description of Hoffman.

I expect that the hill was just behind their 1956 claim line. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Bibliography

• Hoffmann, Steven A. (1990), India and the China Crisis, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-06537-6
• Rowland, John (1967), A History of Sino-Indian Relations: Hostile Co-existence, Van Nostrand – via archive.org

Not RS but might be of use

• https://www.amazon.nl/Police-Warriors-Indo-Chinese-Border-English-ebook/dp/B07ZQ2DLGN TrangaBellam (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

"Easily took"

LuciferAhriman, do you have a source that says the PLA took Shamal Lungpa in 1962, and took it "easily"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Note also that the Kongka Pass incident section has already been illustrated with Map 4, which marks all three locations mentioned. Is there any reason why you find the need to add a new Map 7? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Map 4 is rough, as I show Map 7 to understand Sino-India argued, I find that go to Shamal Lungpa, need to via Gogra along Changlung river. I don't know why them crossed the "traditional border at Kongka Pass". In your article, I dont know where is actual "Kongka Pass incident" location. In many other Chinese articles, they detailed description actual incident location where I marked in deleted Map5. They only go to "Lanak La", need to crossed the "traditional border at Kongka Pass" along Chang Chenmo river. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferAhriman (talk • contribs)

"Traditional border at Kongka Pass" is not our description. It is quoted from a scholar writing about PLA history. And, that scholar was added by a Chinese editor a long time ago.

You cannot mark a location for the incident on a map, unless you have a reliable source for it.

But none of this has anything to do with Map 4. That map is drawn to scale by an authentic source (US Army HQ), and there is no need to mess with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, please provide your sources for the incident and we can discuss how to use them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately that you don't know Chinese, otherwise you can find relevant articles by yourself and judge.

This is history, there is no right or wrong.

By the way, That is truth that Kongka Radar Station is location on "Victory Hill".

I show Map 7 just to understand Sino-India argued.

Chinese editor (not me) edited "Victory Hill", represent Chinese army combat beat Indian army is truth.

I will also verify it, when happen? Do not be Sad. LuciferAhriman (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Proof: "Victory Hill" is battlefield

Map1 Shown Southern "Konka P" has highest point (El+18038), a red path along Chang Chenmo River from Kiam to "Lanak P" (El+18000) and a three-way junction. Hot Springs (El+17040) at Southern Kiam.

There does not has a red path from Hot Springs to "Konka P" in 1916, even now in Open Street Map.

So in 1962 battlefield at a red path along Chang Chenmo River nearby Kongka Pass, i.e. Southern "Konka P". Furthermore, "Victory Hill" in 1962 is anonymous hill near three-way junction. battlefield most probably round here. LuciferAhriman (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I know that it was along the Chang Chenmo River. But that doesn't give a precise map location. You can provide whatever sources you have. Chinese sources are fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

== fence Chinese words begin ==

extended quotation

1959年8月，西线印军派出瞭几支边境巡逻队，试图在中印边境西段增设新的入侵哨所。 9 月中旬，其中一支100余人的边境巡逻队，由正、副队长 S·P 迪亚吉和 K·辛格率领，在邻近中国境内的错格斯查鲁、基阿姆温泉建立哨所，尔后妄图进抵中国境内萨穆尔设立侵略据点。 10月20日，印军派出3人侦察小组向我空喀山口方向进行侦察，途中遭遇我3名边防巡逻组。印军不顾警告举枪威胁，我3人小组遂将3名印军全部缴械俘虏，并拘押瞭起来。 将这3名印军俘获后，为防印军报复，我又派出6人巡逻小组防守于空喀山口附近章图山南侧一独立小高地（胜利山）上，警戒印方动作。 10月21日，我骑兵第 6 团作训股长段海珍、第2 连政治指导员文万秀等7人侦察地形至胜利山时，遭遇前出设卡的印军60余人。 此时我侦察小队7人及事先部署在胜利山的6人，一共有13人，而前来的印军则有60余人，其兵力五倍于我。 这股印军由其正、副队长带队，看到我军兵少而且只携带有轻武器后，便分两路将我军包围。我军13人立即占领有利地形，做好瞭战斗准备，严阵以待。 由于当时中印双方并未处于战争状态，因此最初只是对峙状态，但印军自恃兵力远多于我，还携带有重武器，因此非常嚣张。 双方部署完成后，印军喊话让我军缴械投降，我军则喊话要印军退出中国领土。 到下午时，印度兵抢夺我战马，并逐步逼近我军防守的阵地，试图活捉我军。 15时9分，印军开瞭第一枪；19分，印军又开瞭第二枪。我边防部队则在15时27分鸣枪警告印军，而印军则集火射击我喊话交涉人员——副班长武清国，武班长当即中弹牺牲。 在两国并未处于战争状态的情况下，悍然射击交涉喊话人员，这在绝大多数国家都不会发生的，但在印度这种毫无原则的国家，却是经常发生。 印军射杀我喊话交涉人员后，我边防分队12人开始反击5倍于己的印军。 印度兵的实际战斗力并不强，因此在双方的交手中再未能给我军造成牺牲。我边防分队在交手后也发现瞭印军战力不强的问题，于是决定主动出击。 随后，阵地上的12人分为两个战斗小组，以其中一个小组集中火力压制右侧的印军，另外一个小组则迂回至印军的侧后，对其发动突然袭击。 遭袭后的印军一下子陷入混乱，大部溃逃脱离接触，将其副队长辛格中尉也甩到后面。 战斗结束后统计，共计击毙印军9人、击伤3人，辛格中尉以下7人则被俘虏，余部印军溃逃，我军则牺牲副班长武清国一人。 空喀山口事件，是中印边界西线第一次较大规模的武装冲突，以印军的惨败而告终。 == fence Chinese words end == Above is Generally Chinese (not include Taiwanese) view points Chinese article source website: https://www.youseeandyouhappy.com/tindex8/archives/45363 Could you fence Chinese words to translate in English to read? LuciferAhriman (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC) == translate from fence Chinese words begin == In August 1959, the Indian Army on the Western Front dispatched several border patrols to try to add new invasion posts in the western sector of the Sino-Indian border. In mid-September, one of the more than 100 border patrol units, led by the chief and deputy captains S.P Diaghi and Karam Singh, established outposts in Tsogstsalu and Kiam Hot Springs, which are adjacent to China. Afterwards, he tried to enter the territory of China, Shamal Lungpa, and set up a aggression base. On October 20, the Indian army dispatched a 3-member reconnaissance team to conduct reconnaissance in the direction of Kongka Pass, and encountered three of my border patrol teams on the way. Ignoring the warning, the Indian army raised guns and threatened, so my team of three disarmed and captured all three Indian soldiers and detained them. After capturing the three Indian troops, in order to prevent the Indian troops from retaliating, I sent a patrol team of six people to defend a anonymous small independent highland (Victory Hill) on the south side of Zhangtu Mountain near the Kongka Pass to guard against the Indian side's actions. On October 21st, Duan Haizhen, the commander of the training unit of the 6th Cavalry Regiment, and Wen Wanxiu, the political instructor of the 2nd Company, and other 7 people were reconnaissance terrain to Victory Hill, when they encountered more than 60 Indian troops who had set up cards. At this time, there were 7 people in my reconnaissance team and 6 people in Victory Hill, a total of 13 people, and there were more than 60 Indian troops who came, and their strength was five times that of me. This Indian army was led by its chief and deputy captains. After seeing that our army was small and only carrying light weapons, they surrounded our army in two ways. The 13 troops of our army immediately occupied favorable terrain, prepared for battle, and stood ready. Since China and India were not in a state of war at that time, it was only a confrontation at first, but the Indian army was very arrogant because it believed that it had far more troops than me and also carried heavy weapons. After the deployment of the two sides was completed, the Indian army called for our army to disarm and surrender, and our army called for the Indian army to withdraw from Chinese territory. By the afternoon, the Indian soldiers snatched my horse, and gradually approached the position defended by our army, trying to capture our army alive. At 15:9, the Indian army fired the first shot; at 19 minutes, the Indian army fired the second shot. At 15:27, our border guards fired a shot to warn the Indian army, and the Indian army focused fire on me and called the negotiator - deputy squad leader Wu Qingguo, who was shot and died immediately. When the two countries are not in a state of war, the brazen shooting of the negotiators will not happen in most countries, but in an unprincipled country like India, it often happens. After the Indian army shot and killed my negotiator, 12 people from my border defense unit began to fight back against the Indian army, which was five times its size. The actual combat effectiveness of the Indian soldiers is not strong, so they failed to cause sacrifices to our army in the battle between the two sides. My border defense unit also discovered the problem of the Indian army's weak combat strength after the fight, so I decided to take the initiative to attack. Subsequently, the 12 people on the position were divided into two combat groups, one of which concentrated firepower to suppress the Indian army on the right, and the other group detoured to the side of the Indian army and launched a surprise attack on it. After the attack, the Indian army suddenly fell into chaos, and most of them fled out of contact, leaving their deputy captain, Lieutenant Singh, behind. According to statistics after the battle, a total of 9 Indian soldiers were killed and 3 wounded. Seven people below Lieutenant Singh were captured. The rest of the Indian army fled, and our army sacrificed one deputy squad leader Wu Qingguo. The Kongka Pass incident was the first large-scale armed conflict on the western front of the Sino-Indian border, which ended in a fiasco of the Indian army.

== translate to fence Chinese words end == LuciferAhriman (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

talk: Battlefield at a anonymous small independent highland (Victory Hill) in 1959, is any question? LuciferAhriman (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

LuciferAhriman, when we ask for a "source", we are typically asking for a citation. And that citation needs to be for something regarded as a reliable source. I would strongly advise you to check those two blue links and follow them from now on. What you have provided above does not constitute a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I have now found a reasonably solid source in the Chinese government diplomatic papers, and I will be adding that information eventually. (I can assure you there is nothing about the "Victory Hill" in it, and most of your source is not corroborated either.) But I find that the article is currently not in a good shape. There is no geography section for instance. So I will be fixing those first before doing anything about the "incident". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Victory Hill" in Chinese Map Company(https://map.baidu.com, https://map.qq.com/, https://www.amap.com/ ,etc.), I can search by "胜利山 日土县".

By the way, I cite ISBN Chinese book descripbe Chinese "Kongka Pass incident" and web-news show "Victory Hill" as "胜利山" in map. LuciferAhriman (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for using formatted citations. Please use script-title field the Chinese title and trans-title for the English translation, as I have corrected here. I removed your second source because it is a blog post, and not an WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Query - Thank you for citing sources. Do these sources say anything about what forces were deployed, when they were deployed and what their mission was. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Dokpo Karpo line

Dokpo Karpo dispute map

I don't see any direct way of incorporating this information on any existing page, but we should all know about the famous "Dokpo Karpo dispute" between Kashmir/Ladakh and Tibet in the 1920s. This dispute pertained to the territory in the central part of the north bank of Pangong Lake, in particular the Khurnak Plain and the valley to the north. Ladakh claimed the red line shown on the map, and Tibet claimed the blue line. After several hearings between 1924–1929, the British decided in favour of the Tibetans, i.e., they accepted the blue line. I tend to call this the "Dokpo Karpo line". It is a clearly defined border line that existed prior to all the present disputes.

While this doesn't say anything about the rest of the area that is not covered in the dispute, the Dokpo Karpo line does mean that everything to the north and west of the blue line was accepted as Ladakhi territory by the Tibetans. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Ambushed?

The term "ambushed" is often used by Indian commentators, but I don't know of any WP:THIRDPARTY sources that have done the same. Moreover, if Ahuja's information is correct, the Indian men were confronted by the Chinese troops and asked to return back. That cannot be called an "ambush". They stood their groud and eventually got shot at. That is at least as far as we know. If the Chinese accounts are to be believed, the Indians surrounded them and prepared to attack them. In either case, the term "ambush" is not justifiable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Listing some more issues that came up during my clean-up:
  • The 1956 map was not simply "one of various inconsistent maps". I believe it was thoughtfully constructed by PRC and represented the maximum they thought they could claim at that time. That is why it appears in all the RS about the Sino-Indian border issues.
  • The three locations were in Indian territory as per the 1956 map (not "modern" LAC). Shamal Lungpa seems to have been occupied soon after this incident. I often tell people that the Chinese "doubled down" after this incident. Nationalists generally become more strident with incidents. Remorse is not their thing.
  • Regarding the Shengli Hill/Victory Hill, I understand that that is the general area. But I am not yet sure that it is actually the hill. The Chinese commander said he was at 5100 m. elevation and this hill doesn't have it. The hill to the west does. We also know that firing came from multiple hills, and Tyagi's men were attacked somewhere else too.
  • Security Research Review is Bharat Rakshak Monitor renamed. I wish they wrote a brief bio about the author. He did a PhD at Auburn University, but in aeronautical stuff, not conflict studies. This was apparently a side interest.

Verbiage around Karam Singh's Experience

voidvector, the relevance of the 1958 trip is that there were no Chinese troops between Kongka La and Lanak La at that time. But it is better moved to a separate section on the border dispute, rather than as part of the incident. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of relevance. In which cause the phrasing should be rewritten -- Current phrasing framed "no Chinese troops" as "Karam Singh's prior achievement of no incident", additionally used word "experienced" only serves to make him look good from a narrative standpoint. Sentence should be rewritten to just explicitly spell out "no Chinese troops".

Also I see you reverted my other edit to "per the recent Chinese map". "Recent" is ambiguous here -- does "recent" mean "modern" or does "recent" mean "contemporary"? If it means modern, then referencing LOAC is a NPOV descriptor, as it doesn't go into claims or any "he said, she said". For "contemporary", we probably need to add cite for that from neutral sources. --Voidvector (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

"Experienced" is in the source:

This company was commanded by the most experienced Indian patrol leader in Ladakh, one Karam Singh, who (the previous June) had taken a patrol through Hot Spring, Kongka Pass, and then forty miles further to Lanak La.

This is needed to counter any impressions that he didn't know what he was doing. (Of course, experienced patroller didn't mean experienced fighter. In fact, he wasn't a fighter at all.)

I think "recent" is TrangaBellam's wording. They certainly meant the-then recent maps, but I don't know which ones they had in mind. I would prefer to talk just about the 1956 map. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think his "experience" or "lack of experience" is relevant for this section/article. Encyclopedia doesn't need to go into subjective aspects of the topic (e.g. media commentary) unless forced by topic itself. If there is need to "counter (some) impression" that exists outside of the article (e.g. in public discourse), then there are few options:

• omitted entirely, since that's not the main topic of the article
• mentioned in its own section providing full context

In fact, I could argue for sake of encyclopedic-ness, it is better/easier to keep him as a nameless participant in the writeup.

Put it another way, the article does try to say whether any of the Chinese personnel is WW2 or Korean War veteran. As such there is no point digging up career info for the Indian side. --Voidvector (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

What can I say? I respect you, but I disagree. Full infomation about the Chinese troops would also be warranted if only it was available. The problem may be that this intensely political incident is piggybacking on a geography page. I do intend to make it a separate article. When I do so, we can cut this section back to your tastes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this text trying to communicate the fact that Chinese troop was not there the previous year according to Singh's action? If so, it can just be spelled out directly -- "As late as June 1958, Singh had led patrols to Lanak La without encountering Chinese troop presence." Otherwise, "experience" + "without incident" read like "resume/CV fluffing" to me. --Voidvector (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The connections were made by Hoffmann, whom I quoted above. I think they were stated to suggest that Karam Singh's actions were justifiable and reasonable under the circumstances. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

References