SHOWDOWN IN THE HIMALAYAS

A SECOND SINO-INDIAN WAR?

In May earlier this year, Chinese and Indian infantry units clashed in the Naku La area in Sikkim. 11 soldiers were injured on both sides in that engagement, and tensions between the two countries grew as both sides built up more and more troops. A border conflict seems imminent, especially following the news that Chinese and Indian troops were killed in a clash between the two. Considering that China and India have fought several border conflicts and a full war in 1962, these clashes between the two Asian behemoths could easily flare up into open conflict once again.

However, this begs the question, who would win in a modern war between the two Asian powers? The last time China and India warred against each other in the 1962 Sino-Indian War, India was decisively defeated and the border was pushed back towards India. However, a modern conflict may turn out differently. At a glance, China has vast superiority in firepower, but only a slight edge in raw numbers. The People’s Liberation Army is the third most powerful army in the world according to the Global Firepower Index, behind just the USA and Russia, with India coming just behind in fourth place. The PRC has a population of 1.4 billion and a GDP of $13.61 trillion, while India has a similar population of 1.3 billion but has a GDP of only $2.72 trillion – a huge disparity. China has just under twice the active personnel of India (2.1 million compared to 1.4 million), but India has four times as many reservists as China (510,000 compared to 2.1 million). However, China has a bigger air force and triple the artillery of India. 

However, Chinese advantage in numbers and firepower would be negated by the typography of the battlefield. China and India would be facing each other in the Himalayan mountains, where although there are many roads, passes between peaks are long and narrow. India’s numerical advantage in terms of Main Battle Tanks (4,292 compared with China’s 3,500) with technological parity with China, would as such be rendered irrelevant due to the terrain. Mechanised units would be easily destroyed in these passes by the thousands of ATGMs used by both sides, meaning that fighting would be relegated to battalions of light infantry and airborne units. 

In terms of logistics, the majority of the Indian standing army is based in Kashmir facing Pakistan and in Arunachal Pradesh facing China. The PLA, on the other hand, is mostly deployed in the East, with limited units of mountain troops deployed against India. Airlifting infantry units into the mountain passes would be essential to secure crucial mountain passes. China has more transport helicopters than India in this regard, but the high altitude involved would render most useless. Similarly, China has a substantial edge in airborne units (30,000 compared to 6,000) but again the high altitude would relegate most airborne assault aircraft to a transport role. Indian airbases are situated close to the border to China, while China has a limited number of small airbases on the Tibetan Plateau.  Additionally, Indian cruise and ballistic missile silos are better located than their Chinese counterparts. India would thus have an advantage early in the war. 

In the first weeks of the war, India would be able to conduct local incursions into the Chinese side and capture several mountain passes. However, China would be able to attempt to prevent further incursions once civilian airports in Tibet are taken over. Fighting would be mostly regulated to small scale skirmishes between light infantry and airborne battalions and local victories could go either way. India would, however, be able to take advantage of their initial local superiority and push mountain by mountain instead of just conducting minor incursions if they were willing to sustain such casualties. Chinese troops would be ordered to fight delaying actions while China builds up bases on the Tibetan Plateau for an inevitable counterattack. After a few weeks, Indian losses would likely increase after China flies in ample reinforcements, creating a stalemated frontline. 

The naval theatre would likely remain quiet. While China has an overwhelming advantage in naval power (777 combat ships compared to 285 combat ships), either side would need to navigate through either the Straits of Malacca or the Sunda Strait, both of which are choke points controlled by hostile powers. China theoretically has the range to move its navy around Indonesia and into the Indian Ocean, but such cost in fuel would be too great for any strategic benefit. Fighting would largely be regulated to nuclear attack submarines on both sides, of which China has a numerical and technological advantage. China would as such be able to harass Indian sea lanes but be unable to do much else. 

As the war goes on for longer, the Chinese military presence would increasingly build up in the Tibetan Plateau. China would be able to establish air superiority over the mountains and would begin to conduct counter-attacks to take back lost peaks using their superior airborne infantry while also conducting incursions into Indian territory. While the fighting is most likely going to continue to be limited to the Himalayas, the Chinese could theoretically try something ambitious. An offensive thrust south through the province of Sikkim could cut India in half, but considering the narrow front and harsh terrain, such a move would result in immense casualties. Even if the Chinese succeed in cutting India in half, such a move could result in a nuclear war between the two. Such an ambitious offensive would be extremely unlikely. The end of the war would likely see China gaining limited areas in the Himalayas, a repeat of 1962. 

Regardless, China simply has too much of an industrial and economical edge over India for India to win a border war in the long run. The only hope for India would be to force China to the negotiating table with a series of quick victories in the first weeks of war but considering China’s recent aggressive military rhetoric, China would definitely fight the war out. In the end, China would edge out a marginal victory.

+ posts

2 Replies to “SHOWDOWN IN THE HIMALAYAS”

  1. How does this article provide any sense of reporting or education about the ongoing Sino-Indian conflict? The title itself, “Showdown in the Himalayas”, suggests that the writer seems more interested in the mass brutalities and bloodshed of war, rather than the immense impacts on both nations.
    At the commencement of the article, the loss of life from the most recent border skirmish is discussed. However, instead of educating readers about the possibility of mass destruction of two nuclear-armed countries going head-to-head and the potential devastating extreme loss of life, it trivialises the entire war-like situation and questions readers to think about “who would win in a modern war between the two Asian powers?”.
    Furthermore, there is no discussion about the history and reason behind the border conflict – what is the line of control? who is trespassing into the other nation’s sovereignty?
    The purpose of Pivot is to “educate and inform all young adults about global issues,” however this has done the complete opposite. It has extrapolated into the future, and for the entirety of the article, compares both countries’ powers (i.e. financial, army), and discusses potential war tactics that can be employed (i.e. “Fighting would be mostly regulated to small scale skirmishes between light infantry and airborne battalions and local victories could go either way. “)
    This article provides a trigger-happy commentary, rather than educating readers on the illegal trespassing of the Line of Actual Control, and the seriousness of two such large countries going head-to-head.
    However, it does not stop there. Using controversial and outrageous statements such as “Chinese [will] succeed in cutting India in half” is completely nonsensical and ridiculous, especially for a Monash International Alliance Society affiliated magazine, which stresses the importance of diplomacy in order to attain peace between all nations. This article fantasises war, and fails to address the devastating consequences to both countries, and to the entire world, and suggest means of RESOLVING the potential crisis that can unfold. It does not even address the current loss of life of around 20 Indian soldiers through a ruthless brawl.
    The conflict is connotative of a “game” in this article, and it is interesting to wonder whether such an article would have been published if a Western nation would have been in a similar conflict? Would it have been more concerned about the mass loss of human life or would it have been centred around a potential war strategy and outcome as seen in this article?

    1. Hi DWTPM1873,
      Thank you very much for your insights and sharing your valuable opinion with us. At PIVOT we strive to provide a voice to our writers and guest writers who want to have an educated discussion on a topic. We do not ask our writers to write in a particular format or with a particular opinion in mind. We merely regulate and provide a platform for articles to be written, opinions to be shared and conversations to be had similar to the ones that we are presently having. The writer of this particular article approached the rush piece in a particular manner and we aim to foster diversity of opinions.

      Additionally, please feel free to read out through a letter to the editor type format or additionally write your own article following on from this one discussing the nuances that you raised and send it to publications.mias@gmail.com. We would love to hear and read your insights into the conflict.

      Regards,
      Pivot

Comments are closed.