Talk:Kongka Pass

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 It is presumably listing the facts on the ground, whereas the diplomats likely have partial information (or out of date information).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)Reply

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)Reply

"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)Reply

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

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)Reply

"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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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.^[1] It also matches the "two miles west of the [Kongka] pass, on the banks of the Changchenmo river" description of Hoffman.^[2]

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

• 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

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

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

== fence Chinese words begin ==

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

"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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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.

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)Reply

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)Reply

"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.^[1]

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply