Did India defeat China in 1967?
1967年印度有没有打败中国？
您的位置：首页 > 历史历史
老外提问：1967年印度有没有打败中国？
Did India defeat China in 1967?
2022-05-29
互联网
1158
收藏
举报
译文简介
Quora网友：印度的伤亡为900人，中国只有6人，这是印度媒体1967年的报道。然而，几年后，印度付钱给那些有印度血统的作者，去撰写维基百科词条，在维基百科上造假。
印度输得很惨，然后印度和中国之间就再也没有发生武装冲突了。直到上个月，2017年6月26日。
正文翻译
Did India defeat China in 1967?
1967年印度有没有打败中国？
评论翻译
Chaitanya Belwal, Experienced with Technology and Defense matters（对技术和国防事务有丰富的经验）
India China did have a war in 1967, which was fought in 2 locations. The war composed of two battles, in Nathu La and Cho La both in the eastern theater. Unlike 1962, the Chinese did not open a front in the Northern area (Ladakh/Aksai Chin). This was mainly because in the 1962 war the PLA did not make any major advances in the North like they did in the Eastern theater.
The two incidents were at Nathu La and Cho La and stemmed from Chinese maneuvers to take control of Sikkim. Thinking that the defenses India had were as weak as they were in 1962, the Chinese mobilized forces. However, the Indian forces took preemptive action and started to demark the boundary using barbed wire. This was stopped by the Chinese, and after some time they started a full surprise assault backed by MMG and artillery fire. However, since the Indians occupied the heights, Chinese bunkers were completely annihilated by highly accurate Indian artillery fire over the course of 3 days. The Chinese were forced to withdraw and evacuate all their aggressive positions.
The 1967 war was a decisive Indian victory, and was the catalyst of Sikkim merging with India in 1975.
More Details:
Nathu La and Cho La clashes - Wikipedia
印度和中国在1967年确实发生过战争，战争发生在两个地方。这场战争由两场战役组成，分别发生那都拉和秋拉，两地都位于东部地区。与1962年不同，中国没有在北部地区(拉达克/阿克赛钦)开辟战线。这主要是因为在1962年的战争中，解放军没有像在东部战区那样在北方取得任何重大进展。
两次战斗分别发生在那都拉和秋拉，原因是中国派遣军队试图控制锡金。中国人认为印度的防御像1962年一样虚弱，所以他们发动了军力。然而，印度军队采取了先发制人的行动，开始用带刺的铁丝网标明边界。这一行动被中国人阻止了，一段时间后，他们在中型机枪和炮火的支持下发动了全面突袭。然而，由于印度占领了高地，中国的掩体完全被高度精确的印度炮火在3天内摧毁。中国人被迫撤出所有的侵略阵地。
1967年的战争是印度决定性的胜利，也是1975年锡金与印度合并的催化剂。
更多细节：
那都拉和秋拉冲突——维基百科。
----------------------
Kevin Wang, lives in China
China have a different version which have more acculate records, acculated to minutes even the quantity of bullets used.
Forget the Wikipedit, Chinese do not use and edit them, it is not so reliable if it is edit by indians or others who did not know Chinese words, and just take the opinion of indians.
The record from China
Sep 11, 7:30 India approach to the chinese sentry post. China stick the discipline of not to shoot first. And request india soliders to step back.
Sep11, 8:05 India solider shoot first with grenade. Killed a company commender named Li Yancheng who is speaking and request india soliders to step back. Another 6 chinese soliders wounded.
Then chinese soliders shoot back, finished the conflict in 7 minutes, killed 67 india soliders, destroyed 7 india fortification with model 40 rocket launcher.
8:15 India solider run out of china controled area.Chinese solider didn’t chase into the india controled area. (Many india soliders’ dead bodies left in china, when the conflict finished, the india soliders take a white flag into china to get these bodies back.)
Then india artillery No.17 brigade started fire. Then chinese artillery No. 380 regiment fire back with their 82 and 120 mortars.
During the 4 days and 3 nights artillery conflict, Chinese artillery destroyed 8 artillery positons, 2 command post, 2 sentry post, 23 fortifications and 2 trucks. Killed and wounded 540 india soliders. Finally, india artillery stop fire at Sep 13, 22:00, then china stopped at Sep 14, midday after the indicate of premier Zhou Enlai. (If india stopped fire, we stop as well).
In Oct 1th, 11:20, total 7 india soliders crossed the border and try to kidnap a chinese solider back to india, but failed and then they were pushed back to the india border. As usual, india solider shoot first killed 1 and wounded 1 chinese solider. Then chinese soliders fire back, killed all 7 india soliders who cross the border.
The india artillery start fire use the 51mm and 81mm mortars.and chinese artillery fire back at 12:00, killed and wounded half of the two india companies total 195 india soliders. And destroyed 29 fortifications.
India artillery stopped fire at 19:55, then china stopped.
The result of this conflict:
China killed 607 india soliders, capture 1 light machine guns, 9 submachine guns and 16 rifles.
There are 123 chinese soliders killed or wounded.
At last, india solider waves a white flag into china to get their dead bodies and weapon back. and signed in the accaptance document.
Note: I just translate it with my poor english. I think the accaptance document is the most impotant evidence. But i do not know where the document is. Really a pity.
中国的描述不一样，记录更加准确，而且精确到分钟，甚至精确到使用子弹的数量。
忘掉维基百科吧，中国人不用那玩意，也不会去编辑它，如果它是印度人或者其他不懂中文的人编辑的，并且只采纳印度人的看法，那它就不怎么可靠了。
中国的记录：
9月11日，7:30，印度接近中国哨所。中国坚持不打第一枪的原则，并要求印度士兵后退。
9月11日，8:05，印度士兵先用手榴弹发起攻击，杀死了一个叫Li Yancheng的连长，当时他正在讲话，要求印度士兵后退。另有6名中国士兵受伤。
然后中国士兵进行反击，在7分钟内完成了战斗，杀死了67名印度士兵，并用40型火箭发射器摧毁了7座印度堡垒。
8:15，印度士兵逃出中国控制地区。中国士兵并没有追入印度控制的地区。(许多印度士兵的尸体留在中国，当冲突结束时，印度士兵拿着白旗进入中国取回这些尸体。)
随后，印度第17炮兵旅开火。随后，中国380炮兵团用82和120迫击炮进行了反击。
在四天三夜的炮火冲突中，中国炮兵摧毁了8个炮兵阵地、2个指挥所、2个哨所、23个工事和2辆卡车。造成540名印度士兵伤亡。最后，9月13日22时，印度炮兵停止射击，9月14日中午，周恩来总理指示后，中国停止射击。(“如果印度停止开火，我们也停止。”)
10月1日11:20，共有7名印度士兵越境，试图绑架一名中国士兵回到印度，但是失败了，他们被赶回了印度边境。和往常一样，印度士兵先开枪打死1人，打伤1名中国士兵。然后中国士兵还击，杀死了所有7名越过边界的印度士兵。
印度炮兵使用51毫米和81毫米迫击炮开火。中午12点，中国炮火还击，造成两个印度连的共195名印度士兵死伤，摧毁了29座防御工事。
印度炮兵在19:55停止射击，然后中国也停止了。
这一冲突的结果是：
中国杀死607名印度士兵，缴获1支轻机枪，9支冲锋枪和16支步枪。
共有123名中国军人伤亡。
最后，印度士兵挥舞白旗进入中国取回他们的尸体和武器，并在接收文件上签字。
注：我只是用我蹩脚的英语将其翻译出来。我觉得那份接收文件是最重要的证据。但我不知道这份文件哪里可以找到。真是可惜。
----------------------
Chen Yankai, lived in Beijng, China
I don’t assume Indian friends’ claims are wrong.
I will only provide PLA’s records of that skirmish so you can obtain information from both sides.
All the information of wikipedia term—Nathu La and Cho La clashes - Wikipedia comes from Indian side.
So the information from Chinese side?(not necessarily correct)
Below is PLA’s record:
Source: 1967年中印边境冲突
The first skirmish began on Sep/11th/1967.
7:30, Indian mountain infantry approached Chinese sentry outpost near Nathu La by a battalion of No.112 brigade, 110 men in total.
The Chinese Army issued a serious warning.
At 8:07, the Indian army first shot and threw a grenade, leading to Chinese commander, Li Yancheng’s death. 6 Chinese soldiers were injured.
PLA counterattacked immediately, using 40 rocket launcher .
In 7 minutes, 67 Indian soldiers were killed. 7 Indian army fortifications were destroyed.
At 8:15, the Indian army began to run back off the battlefield. PLA kept in place and did not chase Indian army.
The seventeenth brigade of the Indian artillery began to bombard.
Then Chinese artillery No. 380 regiment used No.82 and No.120 mortars to fire back.
During the whole 4 days and 3 nights’ conflict, Indian army lost 8 artillery positons, 2 command post, 2 sentry post, 23 fortifications and 2 trucks due to Chinese artillery. 540 Indian solidiers were killed and wounded.(7 bodies were left in Chinese territory here.)
Finally, Indian artillery stopped firing at Sep 13, 22:00.
PLA stopped firing at 9/14, midday.
The Second skirmish began on Oct/1st.
At 11:20, 7 Indian soldiers crossed the border, conflicting against PLA soldiers with bodies but were pushed back to the India border.
Indian soldiers then began to shoot. One chinese soldier was killed and one was wounded. Then Chinese soldiers fired back. 7 Indian soldiers who crossed the border were killed.
Then India artillery started to bombard, using the 51mm and 81mm mortars. Chinese artillery bombarded back at 12:00, killing and wounding 195 Indian soldiers. 29 Indian fortifications were destroyed.
India artillery stopped firing at 19:55 and so did PLA stop firing.
Final output:
607 Indian soldiers were killed or wounded.
123 chinese soldiers were killed or wounded.
PLA captured 1 light machine guns, 9 submachine guns and 16 rifles.
Sep/16th, Indian side waved a white flag, asking to enter into Chinese territory. After signing up the delivering document, they took 14 bodies , 24 captured guns back. No Chinese soldier bodies and weapons were left in Indian side.
Again, I emphasize that above is the record of PLA side.
I provided it only for people here able to obtain information from both sides.
Welcome to share your opinions :)
Original answer: Indian government never officially claims a victory on that skirmish in 1967.
Thus, basically, if your own government doesn’t regard it as a victory, what is the claim based on?
Indian netizen edited Wikipedia term of 67 skirmish in their own wish. Just look at the references below the term. You’ll understand.
The truth is Indian officials in 9/16 asked PLA to return 14 bodies, 24 captured guns and other stuff.
I don’t know where they get the number— “340 casualties”.
If their claim is right, PLA attacked into Sikkim, failed and retreated, leaving 340 bodies.
Then,
Any photos?
Any Proof?
If not having bodies, photos or official records of weapons captured will be alright.
Also,what can China obtain by attacking Sikkim?
Ok, even if I assume your assumption that China was a badass and wanted to occupy Sikkim is “right”,
then, why only sent 400 men to conquer a country?
Peace.
[EDIT.1] In my comment area, Mr.Nayak said: “Do you have proof? Photos.. anything apart from a farce written by some PLA douche on their official website!”
Ok, Mr.Nayak. Before pointing others’ claim is baseless, why not watch some old books first?
I recommend an old book— “India China Border Dispute”, written by M.L.Sali, to you.
Note: M.L.Sali is an Indian. Though some descxtions like who attacked first are different from Chinese Source, still, my humble opinion is that its quality of content is much better than the wikipedia term.
At least, it doesn’t “create” some number(340 casualties) with no support of reliable references.
And in another book— “China''s Shadow Over Sikkim: The Politics of Intimidation” , written by G. S. Bajpai:
Thus, it seems PLA did deliver dead bodies to Indian side.
At least, PLA didn’t forge that part of the record.
So, Mr.Nayak, what’s your opinion now?
The key controversy is:
According to PLA’s source, it is “ PLA kept in place and did not chase Indian army.”
According to the records of M.L.Saili, it is:
Clearly, even the author didn’t think China’s intention is to occupy Sikkim’s land at that time.
Finally, again, that answer’s aim is to provide the information from the other side so people can know things more comprehensively, not just from one side.
我并没有假设印度朋友的主张是错的。
我只提供PLA对那场冲突的档案，这样大家可以获得双方的信息。
所有与“那都拉-楚拉冲突”词条的信息都来自印度方面。
所以来自中国方面的信息呢？（不一定正确）。
下面是PLA的记录：
第一次冲突开始于1967年9月11日。
7时30分，11名印度山地步兵（112旅的一个营）向那都拉附近的中国哨所挺进。
中国军队发出了严厉警告。
8时07分，印度军队首先开枪，并投掷手榴弹，导致中国指挥官Li Yancheng的死亡，以及6名中国士兵受伤。
解放军立即反击，使用了40式火箭发射器。
在7分钟内，67名印度士兵被杀。印度军队的防御工事被摧毁。
8点15分，印度军队开始撤离战场。解放军坚守阵地，没有追击印度军队。
印度第十七炮兵旅开始炮击。
随后，中国炮兵380团使用了82和120迫击炮进行反击。
在4天3夜的冲突中，印度军队损失了8个炮兵阵地，2个指挥所，2个岗哨，23个防御工事和2辆卡车。540名印度士兵伤亡。(7具尸体被留在中国境内。)
最后，印度炮兵在9月13日22时停止射击。
解放军在9月14日中午停止射击。
第二次冲突开始于10月1日。
11:20, 7名印度士兵越过边界，与掌握着印军尸体的解放军士兵发生冲突，但被赶回印度边境。
印度士兵随后开始射击。一名中国士兵死亡，一名受伤。然后中国士兵进行了反击。7名越过边境的印度士兵被打死。
然后印度炮兵使用51毫米和81毫米迫击炮，开始炮击。12时，中国炮兵进行了反击，造成195名印度士兵伤亡。29座印度防御工事被摧毁。
19:55分，印度炮兵停止射击，解放军也停止射击。
最终结果：
607名印度士兵伤亡。
123名中国士兵伤亡。
PLA缴获轻机枪1门，冲锋枪9门，步枪16支。
9月16日，印方挥舞白旗，要求进入中国领土。在签署了交付文件后，他们取回了14具尸体和24支缴获的枪支。没有发现中国士兵的尸体和武器留在印度一边。
再次强调，以上是解放军方面的记录。
我提出这些只是为了让大家能够得到来自双方的信息：
欢迎分享你的看法。
最初的回答是：印度政府从未正式宣布在1967年的那场小冲突中取得了胜利。
因此，基本上，如果你们政府都没有将其视为一场胜利，这种宣称有什么根据？
一位印度网民按照自己的意愿编辑了维基百科关于67年冲突的词条。看看这个术语下面的参考文献，你就会明白。
事实是，印度官员在9月16日要求解放军归还14具尸体、24把缴获的枪支和其他物品。
那个“340名死伤”的数据，我不知道他们是从哪里得来的。
如果他们“PLA攻入锡金，失败并且撤退了，留下340具尸体”的说法是正确的，
那么，
有照片吗？
有证据吗？
如果没有尸体、照片或者关于缴获武器的官方记录，也没关系。
另外中国攻击锡金能得到什么？
好吧，即使我假设你关于“中国是个坏蛋，想要占领锡金”的假设是正确的，
那么，为什么只派了400人去进攻一个国家？
祝和平。
编辑1：在我的评论区，Nayak先生说：“你有证据吗？照片之类的任何东西都可以，PLA在他们的官方网站上乱写的东西除外！”
好吧，Nayak先生，在指责别人的言论毫无根据之前，为什么先不看看一些旧书？
我向你推荐一本旧书：《印中边境冲突》，作者M.L.Sali。
注意：M.L.Sali是个印度人。虽然其中的某些诸如“谁先发起攻击”的描述与中国的来源不同，但以我的浅见，它的内容质量比维基百科词条要好得多。
至少，它没有在没有可靠参考的情况下“创造”一些数字(340人伤亡)。
而且在另一本书，G. S. Bajpai所著的《中国的阴影笼罩锡金：恐吓政治》中，可以看到：
PLA似乎确实向印度方面移交了尸体。
至少那部分记录不是PLA伪造的。
所以现在Nayak先生你怎么看？
关键的争议在于，“PLA坚守阵地，没有追逐印度军队。”
根据M.L.Saili的记录，是：
很明显，即使这位作者也不认为中国当时的意图是占领锡金的土地。
最后，再次强调，这个答案的目的是提供来自另一方的信息，这样人们就可以更全面地了解那件事，而不是只听一面之词。
Harsh Patel
@Chen Yankai Thank you for answering in a clear way so we can understand your perspective.
In Indian perspective it was considered an unofficial victory because it prevented a repeat of 1962 war. ( Sort of ‘we repelled another invasion’).
But frankly, Truth is first casualty in a war, maybe India was the aggressor, unfortunately this is something only few in government know.
As they say in Geopolitics, truth is always twisted to fit one''s narrative. This is true for every interaction between any two states.
谢谢你用清晰的方式回答，这样我们才能理解你的观点。
在印度看来，这是一场非官方的胜利，因为它避免了1962年战争的重演。(类似于‘我们击退了另一次入侵’)。
但坦率地说，真相是战争的第一个受害者，也许印度才是侵略者，不幸的是，只有少数政府官员知道这一点。
正如人们所说，在地缘政治方面，真相总是以符合自己的叙述遭到扭曲。对于任意两个国家之间的每一次互动，这句话都适用。
Chen Yankai
Thanks, my friend.
I didn’t see the notification of your comment.
Honestly, I don’t know the truth either. What I provided is just a record from Chinese side.
And I totally agree with your saying “As they say in Geopolitics, truth is always twisted to fit one''s narrative. ” :)
谢谢，我的朋友。
我没有看到你评论的通知。
说实话，我也不知道真相是什么。我提供的只是一份来自中方的记录。
而且我完全同意你的说法：“正如人们所说，在地缘政治方面，真相总是以符合自己的叙述遭到扭曲。”
Dev K Dutta
We have a fair idea of PLA claims and we don’t mind what the PLA likes to believe or not believe. We have our numbers and we have our figures in the right places. You have the freedom to be happy with your “overwhelming victory” in that war.
However, we’re quite sure about the message we have been able to convey to your PLA. They know their place and our guys know their place. Till that status quo is maintained all will be fine. You cross the line…all hell will break loose.
我们对PLA的主张有一个公平的想法，我们不介意PLA喜欢相信什么或不相信什么。我们有我们的数据，我们的数据有正确的来源。你有自由对你在那场战争中的“压倒性胜利”感到高兴。
然而，我们非常确定我们能够向你们的PLA传达信息。他们知道自己的位置，我们的人也知道自己的位置。只要维持现状，一切都没问题。如果你们越线了……你们就会大祸临头。
Chen Yankai
First, I never claimed it is an “overwhelming victory”. I even didn’t say PLA won in my answer.
Second, according to the old records from Indian side in the bottom of my answer, I think PLA’s record, at least, is not totally wrong.
If PLA crossed the line and attacked, losing hundreds men and retreated, where were the bodies? Indian army absolutely could make these bodies as bargain chips.
Like I mentioned before, the opposite thing is: It’s Indian official went into China territory to get back bodies and weapons captured by PLA. These were recorded by both Chinese side and Indian side at that time. How to explain that?
首先，我从未宣称这是一场“压倒性的胜利”。我的回答中甚至没有说PLA赢了。
第二，根据我的答案底部的印度方面的旧记录，我认为解放军的记录至少不是完全错误的。
如果解放军越线并发起进攻，损失了数百人并且撤退，那么尸体在哪里？印度军队绝对可以把这些尸体做成讨价还价的筹码。
就像我之前提到的，情况恰恰相反：印度官员进入中国领土拿回被PLA缴获的尸体和武器。当时中国和印度方面都对此进行了记录。这一点怎么解释？
Dev K Dutta
This entire discourse is about implications and so when you claimed that 600+ Indian soldiers were killed by your PLA in the 1967 war you wanted to imply that China had won that war. You’re at liberty to believe whatever you like but it won’t change the situation on the ground. India prevented Sikkim from going into Chinese hands and conveyed a strong message - 1962 is no longer a yardstick for intimidation. Don’t cross the line!
If our leadership had been alx in the early 1950s, we would have been able to prevent Chinese encroachment into Tibet and our territory of Aksai Chin in Jammu & Kashmir. That’s how we look at Aksai Chin and Tibet. It’s our prerogative. You’re not going to tell us how to look at these occupied areas just as we don’t tell you how to look at Arunachal Pradesh. You have your views and it’s your prerogative. Be happy with that.
As far as the bodies of the dead Chinese soldiers is concerned, you can rest assured that India has never and will never play dirty games with the dead bodies of enemy soldiers. Our culture and tradition forbids us to play dirty games with dead bodies. We don’t hide our casualties in wars and battles to influence historical records.
For us, the sacrifice and martyrdom of our soldiers is a reflection of strength, not weakness. When any of our soldiers makes the supreme sacrifice, we make it a point to let the world know about his/her martyrdom. It’s a matter of pride and inspiration for us. We know that the Chinese casualties were close to 500 in that war and our troops didn’t stop your troops from carrying away the dead bodies of their comrades in arms. We call it Honor. The dead deserve a decent funeral even if they are enemy soldiers.
FYI - captured dead bodies are usually returned by rival armies and ALWAYS returned by the Indian army. But captured weapons? Hell…No. Never. Indian, Chinese or any other army.
你的整个论述充满了暗示，你说你们PLA在1967年杀死了600多名印度士兵，就是想暗示中国赢得了那场战争。你喜欢相信什么就相信什么，这是你的自由，但这并不能改变当地的情况。印度阻止锡金落入中国之手，并传达了一个强烈的信息——1962年不再是恫吓的标准。不要越界！
如果我们的领导层在50年代早期保持警惕，我们原本能够阻止中国入侵西藏和我们在JK的阿克赛钦领土。这就是我们看待阿克赛钦和西藏的方式。这是我们的权力。你不要告诉我们如何看待那些被占领的地区，正如我们也不会告诉你们如何看待阿努纳恰尔邦（藏南）。你们有你们的看法，这是你们的权力。你们高兴就好。
至于中国士兵的尸体，你可以放心，印度从来没有，也永远不会拿敌人士兵的尸体玩肮脏的游戏。我们的文化和传统禁止我们玩尸体游戏。我们不会为了影响历史记录而隐瞒我们在战争和战斗中的伤亡。
对我们来说，我们士兵的牺牲和殉难反映的是力量，而不是软弱。如果我们的任何士兵做出了最高的牺牲，我们都会让世界知道他/她的牺牲。这是我们的骄傲和鼓舞方式。我们知道，在那场战争中，中国在这场战争中的伤亡人数接近500人，我们的军队没有阻止你们的军队带走他们战友的尸体。我们将这种做法称之为荣誉。即使是敌军士兵，他们也应该得到一个体面的葬礼。
仅供参考：缴获的死尸通常会归还给敌军，而且印度军队总是做到了这一点。但是缴获武器？天……不，永远不会。无论是印度人、中国人或者任何军队都不会。
Chen Yankai
Calm down my friend.
“607 Indian soldiers were killed or wounded.”
The record never say 607 were killed…
10–20% of the total casualties are expected to be killed, generally.
How many times do I need to illustrate: it’s just a record from one side. Don’t you think it’s unfair to watch information from only one side(India), especially like such things happening between two countries ?
“We know that the Chinese casualties were close to 500 in that war and our troops didn’t stop your troops from carrying away the dead bodies of their comrades in arms.”—any records? Why was that moral action not recorded in both books written by Indians? Not 340? Now it becomes 500. You still didn’t explain why Indian bodies were in China territory.
PLA did return weapons in 62 and 67. It’s not difficult to google it.
As for your saying that India could prevent China from retaking Tibet in 1950, honestly speaking, considering PVA’s performance in Korean War, it’s hard to say. Korean war
BUT maybe you are quite right. Who knows.
冷静一点，我的朋友。
“607名印度士兵死亡或受伤。”
一般来说，总伤亡人数的10-20%会死掉。
需要我说明多少次？这只是一边的记录。难道你不认为只从一边(印度)看信息是不公平的吗？尤其是像这样的发生在两个国家之间的事情？
“我们知道，在那场战争中，中国在这场战争中的伤亡人数接近500人，我们的军队没有阻止你们的军队带走他们战友的尸体。”有任何记录吗？为什么两本印度人写的书里都没有记录这种高尚的行为？这次又不是340了？又变成了500？你还是没有解释为什么印度人的实体出现在中国的土地上。
PLA在62年和67年确实归还了武器。随便搜索一下，很容易搜到。
至于你说印度原本可以在1950年阻止中国收复西藏，老实说，考虑到印度军队在朝鲜战争中的表现，很难说。
但是你说的没准非常正确呢。谁知道呢。
Kaushalendra Yadav
Seeing their CO fall, the Grenadiers became mad with rage. In a fit of fury, they came out of their trenches, and attacked the Chinese post, led by Captain P.S. Dagar. The company of 18 Rajput, under Major Harbhajan Singh, and the sappers and pioneers working on the fence had been caught in the open, and suffered heavy casualties from the Chinese firing. Realising that the only way to neutralise the Chinese fire was a physical assault, Harbhajan shouted to his men, and led them in a charge on the Chinese position. Several of the Indian troops were mowed down by Chinese machine guns, but those who reached the Chinese bunkers used their bayonets and accounted for many of the enemy. Both Harbhajan and Dagar lost their lives in the action, which developed into a full scale battle, lasting six days. Sagat had asked for some medium guns, and
I have copied it from a book of a soldier of that incident.i think these lines will give you your answer about why indian soldier bodies found in Chinese territory.
“……看到他们指挥官阵亡，掷弹兵愤怒的发了疯。在一阵狂怒中，他们在上尉P.S. Dagar的率领下走出了战壕，袭击了中国哨所。Harbhajan Singh少校指挥下的18名拉杰普特人的连队，以及搭设围栏的工兵和先锋，被困在开阔地带，他们在中国人的射击下伤亡惨重。在意识到压制中国人火力的唯一方法是发起肉搏后，Harbhajan对他的人大喊，并带领他们向中国阵地发起冲锋。几名印度士兵被中国的机枪扫射倒地，但那些到达中国地堡的士兵用刺刀杀死了许多敌人。Harbhajan和Dagar都在这次行动中牺牲了，这次行动发展为一场大规模战斗，持续了6天。Sagat要求一些中型火炮，而且……”
以上内容是从一位经历过那场冲突的士兵所写的书里复制来的。我认为这些句子可以让你明白，为什么印度士兵的尸体会出现在中国领土上。
Rajiv Prasad
If I say you to watch the movie PALTAN you would say that it is issued by the Indian officials so you will definitely disagree with me. Similarly the proof you are providing in your answer is issued by some PLA officials so how can we believe this. So you just keep amusing us with your ridiculous answer we won''t mind your mistakes.
如果我要你看电影《帕尔坦》，你会说那是印度官员发布的，所以你肯定不会同意我的看法。那你提供的证据也是某些PLA官员发布的，我们怎么会相信它呢。所以你可以继续用你可笑的答案逗我们，我们不会介意你的错误。
Aditya Pratap Singh
But man according to neutral sources Chinese casualties were far more higher than Indian casualties, search wiki
但是根据中立消息来源，中国人的伤亡人数远远高于印度人。看看维基百科吧。
Patrick Koh
Problem is, who wrote the wiki : )
问题在于，那些维基百科的词条是谁写的。
----------------------
Shunit Datta, lives in India (2002-present)
I agree with the other quorans that it was not a war but a series of localized conflicts.
It is absolutely true that India defeated China in the 1967 conflict.The conflict had mainly occured because China (Peoples Liberation Army) had infiltrated into Sikkim on 1st October 1967. What followed was a series millitary clashes that took place between China and India at the end of which India was able to push out the Chinese infiltrators resulting in a Indian Victory.
我同意其他网友的回答，这不是一场战争，而是一系列局部冲突。
印度在1967年冲突中击败中国是绝对真实的。这场冲突主要是是因为中国（PLA）在1967年10月1日渗透进入锡金。随后，中国和印度之间发生了一系列的军事冲突，印度击退了中国的渗透者，取得了胜利。
----------------------
Michael Luo
Yeah, India defeated China in 1962, 1967, and 1987. India will win over China forever!
是啊，印度在1962、1967和1987年都击败了中国。印度会永远击败中国。
----------------------
Jaskaran Singh
Yes, india pushed back chinese forces in 1967, but i wouldnt consider it a war. It was a skirmish between both nations with minimum casualties. Although, india is not the India of 1962 anymore so is not china. In a real war, china will easily defeat india in terms of military power and economy. It is best interests of india to not to engage in any military conflict for at least few decades
是的，印度在1967年击退了中国军队。但我不觉得这是一场战争。这只是两国之间的一场小冲突，而且伤亡有限。但是印度不再是1962年的印度，中国也一样。在实际战争中，中国在军事力量和经济方面都会轻易击败印度。在至少几十年内，印度挑起任何军事冲突都不符合印度的最佳利益。
----------------------
Benedicto Braz
India suffered casualties of 900, China only 6, and it was reported in Indian media in 1967.
However, several year later, India paid Indian DNA writers to write in Wiki to make false claims in Wiki.
India lost heavily and then no more armed conflicts between India and China. until last month, June 26 2017.
印度的伤亡为900人，中国只有6人，这是印度媒体1967年的报道。
然而，几年后，印度付钱给那些有印度血统的作者，去撰写维基百科词条，在维基百科上造假。
印度输得很惨，然后印度和中国之间就再也没有发生武装冲突了。直到上个月，2017年6月26日。
----------------------
Eld Sun, BSc from Univerisity of Bedfordshire (2007)（贝德福德郡大学）
yes. badly.
all India army was protect by Shiva.
PLA just can not won. they just can not .
China will never defeat India i believe.
hope India stop invade us. because if they try, they can take Beijing easily.
For the Shiva~~~~~~~
是的，很惨。
印度所有的军队都获得了湿婆的保护。
PLA无法获胜，就是这样。
我相信中国永远无法打败印度。
希望印度不要再侵略我们，因为如果印度一出手，他们就能轻易攻占北京。
为了湿婆~~~
----------------------
Vishnu Kumar, lives in India (1999-present)
Neither chinese product nor its word has guarantee.
We took control over whole Sikkim and still it is our state. PLA were recklessly forced behind and thrown out of sikkim. The PLA cooks story for its face saving. They dont allow other media or uncensored media in china so that people could not know the truth. Around 340 soldiers of chinese were killed with kess than 100 indian casualties. Its the only truth and world (except comunist party of china) accepts it.
Even they massacred more than 10,000 chinese (As per world not communist party of china) on Tinamen Square but censored media and chinese govt tells only 300 were killed. Shame shame…
Chinese media has only subscribers on Youtube because of those Panda videos. No body watch another news on it as they know its authenticity.
We never mind what your censored chinese media tells you cooked story. The whole story from chinese are false and PLA has cooked on its own. It was a clear cut victory for India as our target ware acheived. Moreover, chinese had 4 times more casualties than india.
And how can a censored media of china will report it!. And Indian govt clearly claims its victory.
Chinese govt, media and PLA are only good in cooking stories. Infact they also lost war with vietnam but claims its victory.
Meanwhile chinese thinks that whole world reads chinese textbooks. Shame on these type of brainwashed narrow minded chinese citizens.
Before raising questions on Wikipedia, check the credibility of your own media on govt. Check how many people outside china trusts on chinese information and products. Wikipedia is the source of credible knowledge for world except china. Infact chinese govt banned wikipedia as they didnt want any source of true and credible knowledge to exist in china. Now get lost.
Now please go through wikipedia. Most authentic information.
Nathu La and Cho La clashes - Wikipedia
中国人的话，跟中国的产品一样，都毫无保证。
我们控制整个锡金，现在它依然是我们的邦。PLA被无情的赶走，赶出了锡金。PLA为了保住面子而炮制故事。他们不允许中国出现其他媒体或者未经审查的媒体，这样人们就不会知道真相。大约有340名中国人被杀，而印度有100人死伤。这是唯一的事实，全世界都知道。
甚至他们在XX屠杀了10000中国人，但审查了媒体。
中国媒体在YouTube上有人看，唯一的原因就是那些熊猫的视频。没人看他们报的新闻，因为大家都知道其真实性。
你们中国媒体搞审查，报道炮制的新闻，我们从来不在乎。中国人说的都是假的，都是PLA自己编造的。那场战争对印度来说是一场一清二楚的胜利，因为我们的目标都实现了。还有，中国人的伤亡比印度多4倍。
看看中国的审查媒体是怎么报道的！而且印度政府清楚的说明了那是一场胜利。
中国ZF、媒体和PLA唯一擅长的就是编造故事。实际上，他们在越南也打输了，却声称那是一场胜利。
与此同时，中国人还以为全世界都看中国的教科书。那些被洗脑的思维狭隘的中国人真可耻。
在对维基百科提出质疑之前，先看看你们自己的媒体对ZF报道的真实性。看看中国以外有多少人相信中国的信息和产品。维基百科对全世界来说都是一个值得信任的知识来源，就中国不信。实际上中国ZF封杀了危机百科，因为他们不想让中国存在任何真实可信的知识来源。现在滚蛋吧。
现在请仔细看危机百科。它是最真实的信息。
----------------------
Winters Wu
all in ONE sentence:if they indians had won any war or conflict,they would not be so much more hating China than any other countries since that time till now,then all the time,all the way.
no one who got victory would hate the ONE who got lose.spiritual victory cannot make u stronger.
keep in peace.
我只说一句：如果他们印度人真的打赢了任何战争或者冲突，那么从那时起，他们对中国的仇恨就不会这么多，多到超过任何其他国家，然后一直一直持续到现在。
任何获得胜利的人都不会仇恨输掉的人。精神胜利法不会让你变强大。
保持平和吧。
----------------------
Hampton William
A:
Indian Media report in 1967: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 6.
Indian Media report in 1970s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 12.
Indian Media report in 1980s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 120.
Indian Media report in 1990s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 220.
Indian Media report in 2000s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 300.
Indian Media report in 2010ss: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 400.
....
Prediction:
Indian Media report in 2020s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 4,000.
答案1：
印度媒体1967年的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，6名PLA受伤；
印度媒体70年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，12名PLA受伤；
印度媒体80年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，120名PLA受伤；
印度媒体90年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，220名PLA受伤；
印度媒体00年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，300名PLA受伤；
印度媒体2010年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，100名PLA受伤；
预测：
印度媒体2020年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，4000名PLA受伤；
B:
Because India lost heavily again in 1967.
India army: death over 200, wound: over 600.
PLA death: 0, Wound: 6.
The US general comments:
Indian army is just like a butter, PLA is just like a hot knife.
If PLA did not capture all Indian soldiers and weapons, and then returned to India in 1962 war, India would then claim India achieved a great victory against China in PLA in 1962.
Similarly India would then post a question like
"Why does China deny the fact that they lost the war against India in 1962".
That''s why India has been good at nothing, but false claiming for the past 70 years in the world.
答案2：
因为印度在1967年损失惨重。
印军：死亡超过200人，受伤超过600人；
PLA：死亡0，受伤6人。
美国将军的评论：
印度军队就像一块黄油，PLA就像一把滚烫的刀子。
如果在1962年战争中，PLA没有缴获所有的印度士兵和武器，然后再归还给印度，印度肯定会说印度在1962年打败中国，取得了一场伟大的胜利。
印度人还会发出这样的一个问题：
“中国在1962年战争中输给了印度，为什么中国否认这个事实？”
这就是印度为什么在过去70年一事无成，却一直在全世界面前大吹法螺的原因。
C:
India is so amusing to make up story to amuse Indians.
India lost again heavily, but it was a small conflict.
It is understood that PLA won 1962.
In 1967, China just started the culture revolution and preparing for the H2 bombs.
Tibet had riots incited by India, CIA etc. Also Indian army knew that PLA would not fire first shot.
Indian army has been exploring some small opportunities (not war, just some small fights to indicate that Indian army is able to achieve victories against PLA).
So Indian army initiated the attack on PLA position: but with dead: 200, injured 540, then Indian army stopped the attack.
PLA" injured: 6, death: 0, (1 dead before the conflict by the Indian soldier).
To PLA, it was a small piece of cake.... no need to mention it.
This kind of small conflicts happened along China and Russia border, especially along Xinjang and Russia, it happened almost every day in 1962 and 1967, believed it was Russia way to help India. Or India aligned together with the USSR to make troubles for PLA.
答案3：
印度喜欢编造故事让印度人笑口常开，这一点很搞笑。
印度损失惨重，但那只是一场小规模冲突。
不消说PLA打赢了1962年战争。
吐蕃的暴乱就是印度和CIA之流挑起的。印度军队也知道PLA不会打第一枪。
印度军队一直在寻找小机会（不是战争，只是一些小冲突，目的是表明印度军队能够打败PLA，取得胜利。）
所以印度军队开始攻击PLA哨所：但是死了200，伤了540，然后印度军队停止了这次攻击。
PLA受伤6人，无人死亡（在冲突之前，有一人死于印度士兵之手）。
对于PLA来说，这只是一碟小菜……没有提起的必要。
这种小冲突在中国和俄罗斯边境到处发生，尤其是新疆和俄罗斯之间的边境，在1962年和1967年几乎每天都在发生，我认为这是俄罗斯在用这种方式帮助印度。或者是印度与苏联勾结在一起给PLA找麻烦。
D:
Just reveal a small secret with you:
In later Korean war, it was position to positional fight between the US soldiers and PLA.
For one example:
PLA was defending its position from the US'' attack from air, ground troops with over 500 soldiers.
PLA was defending with 8 PLA soldiers (well prepared as it was mountains areas).
After 12 hours fights:
All PLA dead: 8
US casualties: death 200, wound over 300.
PLA finally lost its position to US, and the survived US surprised that there were only 8 PLA in defending their position.
In 1990s, the survived US soldiers went to China and ask PLA to explain what happened in that conflict as US still did not believe that there were only 8 PLA in the conflict.
Now come back to 1967 conflicts.
PLA knew that Indian army would attack PLA position one way or another (small war), as Indian government wanted to give moral to Indians, remember Indian army were scared to death to PLA.
So you then know what happened.
Indian casualties: Death 200, Wound 540
PLA casualties: Death: 0, wound 6.
Indian army never experienced any serious and tough combats fights, as one US general said: Indian army is just like a butter and PLA is just like a hot knife.
Do not boast how hard the butter is, it is just a butter.
答案4：
告诉大家一个小秘密：
在朝鲜战争后期，美国士兵和PLA之间进行着阵地对阵地的战争。
举个例子：
PLA防守一个阵地，面对美国来自空中的攻击，还有超过500名的地面部队。
而PLA的防守兵力只有8个PLA士兵（因为是山区，所以准备的很好）。
经过12小时的战斗：
PLA的阵亡人数8人，
美军的伤亡则是死200，伤员超300。
PLA的这个阵地终于输给了美国，而幸存下来的美军惊讶的发现只有8个人防守这个阵地。
90年代，幸存的美军士兵前往中国，要求PLA解释为什么会发生那样的战斗，因为美国人依旧不相信战斗中只有8个PLA战士。
我们再说1967年冲突吧。
PLA知道印度军队会时不时的攻击PLA的阵地（小型战争），因为印度政府想给印度人涨涨士气，因为印度军队对PLA怕得要死。
所以大家都知道接下来会发生什么。
印度伤亡：死200，伤员540。
PLA伤亡：死0，伤员6人。
印度军队从来没有经历过任何严肃和艰苦的作战，就像一名美国将军所说：印度军队就像一块黄油，而PLA就像一把烧热的刀子。
不要吹嘘黄油有多硬，黄油就是黄油。
E:
In 1967, it was Indian army only attempted revenge over the loss of 1962!
Difference between 1967 and 1962.
In 1962, PLA was offensive.
In 1967, Indian army was offensive. PLA was defending its position.
Indian army suffered heavy casualties and stopped offensive action. Since then, there has been no more conflicts with casualties on both sides.
PLA retreated 20 km from the original line after the short 1962 war.
Indian government and army would announce the great victory over PLA and killed over 10,000 PLA, evidence was that PLA run away even 20 km from the original line, if PLA did not tape it.
Indian government, army and media desperately need a so called victory over PLA, and thus initiated a short attack, but with:
Indian casualties: Death: 200, wound: over 500
PLA casualties: Death: 0, wound: 6.
India paid India-origin to write so called victories in internet to fool Indians.
Anyway, India has been well known to have the freedom of making false claim.
That''s why India and West have banned the Australia journalist report on the true India and China war for over 50 years!
(For those who are able to read in Chinese, you may check 1967 conflicts between India and India in Chinese media (it was simply half page to indicate that there was a conflict and casualties on both sides as it was not a big news in China).
答案5：
1967年，印度军队只是想为1962年的失败进行报复！
1967与1962的不同在于：
1962年，PLA是进攻方。
而1967年，印度军队是进攻方。PLA则在防守自己的阵地。
印度军队遭受了惨重的伤亡，停止了进攻行动。从那时起，双方都再也没有进行有伤亡的冲突。
短暂的1962年战争之后，PLA从原本的战线后撤了20km。
如果PLA没有对此录像，印度政府和军队会宣布取得了对PLA的大胜，并且杀死了超过10000名PLA，证据就是PLA从原本的战线逃跑了20km。
印度政府、军队和媒体急切的想要一场胜过PLA的所谓的胜仗，所以发起了一场短期的进攻，但是却得到了这一个结果：
死亡200人，受伤超过500人；
PLA的伤亡：死亡0人，受伤6人。
印度收买了印度裔在网上编写了所谓的胜利，来愚弄印度人。
无论如何，印度在编造虚假主张方面一直很出名，他们有这种自由嘛。
这就是为什么一位澳大利亚记者真实的报道了印度和中国之间的战争，而他50多年来一直遭到印度和西方的封杀！
（对于那些读得懂中文的人，可以去看看中国媒体对印度和中国1967年冲突所做的报道。那个报道只有简简单单的半页纸，仅仅指出两国之间发生了一次冲突，并说明了伤亡人数，因为这件事在中国并不是什么大新闻。）
F:
Love to see Indian government to fool Indians for decades.
India tried the only revenge on PLA position, but suffered heavy loss. And then India had given up and surrendered since 1967.
However, India made up so called victory against PLA in 1967.
If you look at Indian media in 1967, it stated that PLA wound 6.
Then slowing Indian media as always exaggerated the figure: 6, then 12
Recently, 200 and even 300.
By year 2025, the Indian media would say that PLA casualties, 3000
Poor India.
答案6：
我很喜欢看印度政府几十年来愚弄印度人的做法。
印度只想对PLA的哨所进行报复，却遭受了惨重的损失。然后从1967年以来，印度就放弃并投降了。
然而，印度编造了所谓的1967年打败PLA取得胜利的故事。
看看印度媒体1967年的报道，它说的是PLA受伤6人。
然后印度媒体就一如既往的夸大这个数字，从6变成12，最近是200，甚至300。
等到2025年，印度媒体会说PLA的伤亡达到3000人。
可怜的印度。
G:
In 1962, India knew clearly who were commanders and leaders of PLA in the conflict.
In 1967, the writers even did not know who were the field commanders and leaders of the PLA for the 1967 conflict. Thus just simply put Mao Zedong. Low IQ Indians and the writers even did not know how to lie.
(for example, there is a border shooting between Pakistan and India army now, Pakistan field commander are “Mosign”, however, Indian border field commander is unknown, thus it is Modi!)
India took five years to attack PLA position, but even today still do not know who were the commander and leaders of PLA whom they fought with in 1967!!!
1962年，印度清楚的知道那场战争中PLA的指挥员和领导人是谁。
而1967年，那些“作者”甚至不知道1967年冲突中，PLA的战地指挥官和领导人是谁。所以只能简单的说是毛。智商低下的印度人和那些“作者”甚至连撒谎都不会。
（就好比，现在巴基斯坦和印度军队之间发生了一场边境开火事件，巴基斯坦的战地指挥官是Mosign，而印度的战地指挥官不知道名字，所以就是莫迪！）
印度花了5年时间进攻PLA的哨所，但是直到今天依然不知道1967年与他们作战的PLA是谁指挥和领导的！
原文地址：https://www.quora.com/Did-India-defeat-China-in-1967
India China did have a war in 1967, which was fought in 2 locations. The war composed of two battles, in Nathu La and Cho La both in the eastern theater. Unlike 1962, the Chinese did not open a front in the Northern area (Ladakh/Aksai Chin). This was mainly because in the 1962 war the PLA did not make any major advances in the North like they did in the Eastern theater.
The two incidents were at Nathu La and Cho La and stemmed from Chinese maneuvers to take control of Sikkim. Thinking that the defenses India had were as weak as they were in 1962, the Chinese mobilized forces. However, the Indian forces took preemptive action and started to demark the boundary using barbed wire. This was stopped by the Chinese, and after some time they started a full surprise assault backed by MMG and artillery fire. However, since the Indians occupied the heights, Chinese bunkers were completely annihilated by highly accurate Indian artillery fire over the course of 3 days. The Chinese were forced to withdraw and evacuate all their aggressive positions.
The 1967 war was a decisive Indian victory, and was the catalyst of Sikkim merging with India in 1975.
More Details:
Nathu La and Cho La clashes - Wikipedia
印度和中国在1967年确实发生过战争，战争发生在两个地方。这场战争由两场战役组成，分别发生那都拉和秋拉，两地都位于东部地区。与1962年不同，中国没有在北部地区(拉达克/阿克赛钦)开辟战线。这主要是因为在1962年的战争中，解放军没有像在东部战区那样在北方取得任何重大进展。
两次战斗分别发生在那都拉和秋拉，原因是中国派遣军队试图控制锡金。中国人认为印度的防御像1962年一样虚弱，所以他们发动了军力。然而，印度军队采取了先发制人的行动，开始用带刺的铁丝网标明边界。这一行动被中国人阻止了，一段时间后，他们在中型机枪和炮火的支持下发动了全面突袭。然而，由于印度占领了高地，中国的掩体完全被高度精确的印度炮火在3天内摧毁。中国人被迫撤出所有的侵略阵地。
1967年的战争是印度决定性的胜利，也是1975年锡金与印度合并的催化剂。
更多细节：
那都拉和秋拉冲突——维基百科。
----------------------
Kevin Wang, lives in China
China have a different version which have more acculate records, acculated to minutes even the quantity of bullets used.
Forget the Wikipedit, Chinese do not use and edit them, it is not so reliable if it is edit by indians or others who did not know Chinese words, and just take the opinion of indians.
The record from China
Sep 11, 7:30 India approach to the chinese sentry post. China stick the discipline of not to shoot first. And request india soliders to step back.
Sep11, 8:05 India solider shoot first with grenade. Killed a company commender named Li Yancheng who is speaking and request india soliders to step back. Another 6 chinese soliders wounded.
Then chinese soliders shoot back, finished the conflict in 7 minutes, killed 67 india soliders, destroyed 7 india fortification with model 40 rocket launcher.
8:15 India solider run out of china controled area.Chinese solider didn’t chase into the india controled area. (Many india soliders’ dead bodies left in china, when the conflict finished, the india soliders take a white flag into china to get these bodies back.)
Then india artillery No.17 brigade started fire. Then chinese artillery No. 380 regiment fire back with their 82 and 120 mortars.
During the 4 days and 3 nights artillery conflict, Chinese artillery destroyed 8 artillery positons, 2 command post, 2 sentry post, 23 fortifications and 2 trucks. Killed and wounded 540 india soliders. Finally, india artillery stop fire at Sep 13, 22:00, then china stopped at Sep 14, midday after the indicate of premier Zhou Enlai. (If india stopped fire, we stop as well).
In Oct 1th, 11:20, total 7 india soliders crossed the border and try to kidnap a chinese solider back to india, but failed and then they were pushed back to the india border. As usual, india solider shoot first killed 1 and wounded 1 chinese solider. Then chinese soliders fire back, killed all 7 india soliders who cross the border.
The india artillery start fire use the 51mm and 81mm mortars.and chinese artillery fire back at 12:00, killed and wounded half of the two india companies total 195 india soliders. And destroyed 29 fortifications.
India artillery stopped fire at 19:55, then china stopped.
The result of this conflict:
China killed 607 india soliders, capture 1 light machine guns, 9 submachine guns and 16 rifles.
There are 123 chinese soliders killed or wounded.
At last, india solider waves a white flag into china to get their dead bodies and weapon back. and signed in the accaptance document.
Note: I just translate it with my poor english. I think the accaptance document is the most impotant evidence. But i do not know where the document is. Really a pity.
中国的描述不一样，记录更加准确，而且精确到分钟，甚至精确到使用子弹的数量。
忘掉维基百科吧，中国人不用那玩意，也不会去编辑它，如果它是印度人或者其他不懂中文的人编辑的，并且只采纳印度人的看法，那它就不怎么可靠了。
中国的记录：
9月11日，7:30，印度接近中国哨所。中国坚持不打第一枪的原则，并要求印度士兵后退。
9月11日，8:05，印度士兵先用手榴弹发起攻击，杀死了一个叫Li Yancheng的连长，当时他正在讲话，要求印度士兵后退。另有6名中国士兵受伤。
然后中国士兵进行反击，在7分钟内完成了战斗，杀死了67名印度士兵，并用40型火箭发射器摧毁了7座印度堡垒。
8:15，印度士兵逃出中国控制地区。中国士兵并没有追入印度控制的地区。(许多印度士兵的尸体留在中国，当冲突结束时，印度士兵拿着白旗进入中国取回这些尸体。)
随后，印度第17炮兵旅开火。随后，中国380炮兵团用82和120迫击炮进行了反击。
在四天三夜的炮火冲突中，中国炮兵摧毁了8个炮兵阵地、2个指挥所、2个哨所、23个工事和2辆卡车。造成540名印度士兵伤亡。最后，9月13日22时，印度炮兵停止射击，9月14日中午，周恩来总理指示后，中国停止射击。(“如果印度停止开火，我们也停止。”)
10月1日11:20，共有7名印度士兵越境，试图绑架一名中国士兵回到印度，但是失败了，他们被赶回了印度边境。和往常一样，印度士兵先开枪打死1人，打伤1名中国士兵。然后中国士兵还击，杀死了所有7名越过边界的印度士兵。
印度炮兵使用51毫米和81毫米迫击炮开火。中午12点，中国炮火还击，造成两个印度连的共195名印度士兵死伤，摧毁了29座防御工事。
印度炮兵在19:55停止射击，然后中国也停止了。
这一冲突的结果是：
中国杀死607名印度士兵，缴获1支轻机枪，9支冲锋枪和16支步枪。
共有123名中国军人伤亡。
最后，印度士兵挥舞白旗进入中国取回他们的尸体和武器，并在接收文件上签字。
注：我只是用我蹩脚的英语将其翻译出来。我觉得那份接收文件是最重要的证据。但我不知道这份文件哪里可以找到。真是可惜。
----------------------
Chen Yankai, lived in Beijng, China
I don’t assume Indian friends’ claims are wrong.
I will only provide PLA’s records of that skirmish so you can obtain information from both sides.
All the information of wikipedia term—Nathu La and Cho La clashes - Wikipedia comes from Indian side.
So the information from Chinese side?(not necessarily correct)
Below is PLA’s record:
Source: 1967年中印边境冲突
The first skirmish began on Sep/11th/1967.
7:30, Indian mountain infantry approached Chinese sentry outpost near Nathu La by a battalion of No.112 brigade, 110 men in total.
The Chinese Army issued a serious warning.
At 8:07, the Indian army first shot and threw a grenade, leading to Chinese commander, Li Yancheng’s death. 6 Chinese soldiers were injured.
PLA counterattacked immediately, using 40 rocket launcher .
In 7 minutes, 67 Indian soldiers were killed. 7 Indian army fortifications were destroyed.
At 8:15, the Indian army began to run back off the battlefield. PLA kept in place and did not chase Indian army.
The seventeenth brigade of the Indian artillery began to bombard.
Then Chinese artillery No. 380 regiment used No.82 and No.120 mortars to fire back.
During the whole 4 days and 3 nights’ conflict, Indian army lost 8 artillery positons, 2 command post, 2 sentry post, 23 fortifications and 2 trucks due to Chinese artillery. 540 Indian solidiers were killed and wounded.(7 bodies were left in Chinese territory here.)
Finally, Indian artillery stopped firing at Sep 13, 22:00.
PLA stopped firing at 9/14, midday.
The Second skirmish began on Oct/1st.
At 11:20, 7 Indian soldiers crossed the border, conflicting against PLA soldiers with bodies but were pushed back to the India border.
Indian soldiers then began to shoot. One chinese soldier was killed and one was wounded. Then Chinese soldiers fired back. 7 Indian soldiers who crossed the border were killed.
Then India artillery started to bombard, using the 51mm and 81mm mortars. Chinese artillery bombarded back at 12:00, killing and wounding 195 Indian soldiers. 29 Indian fortifications were destroyed.
India artillery stopped firing at 19:55 and so did PLA stop firing.
Final output:
607 Indian soldiers were killed or wounded.
123 chinese soldiers were killed or wounded.
PLA captured 1 light machine guns, 9 submachine guns and 16 rifles.
Sep/16th, Indian side waved a white flag, asking to enter into Chinese territory. After signing up the delivering document, they took 14 bodies , 24 captured guns back. No Chinese soldier bodies and weapons were left in Indian side.
Again, I emphasize that above is the record of PLA side.
I provided it only for people here able to obtain information from both sides.
Welcome to share your opinions :)
Original answer: Indian government never officially claims a victory on that skirmish in 1967.
Thus, basically, if your own government doesn’t regard it as a victory, what is the claim based on?
Indian netizen edited Wikipedia term of 67 skirmish in their own wish. Just look at the references below the term. You’ll understand.
The truth is Indian officials in 9/16 asked PLA to return 14 bodies, 24 captured guns and other stuff.
I don’t know where they get the number— “340 casualties”.
If their claim is right, PLA attacked into Sikkim, failed and retreated, leaving 340 bodies.
Then,
Any photos?
Any Proof?
If not having bodies, photos or official records of weapons captured will be alright.
Also,what can China obtain by attacking Sikkim?
Ok, even if I assume your assumption that China was a badass and wanted to occupy Sikkim is “right”,
then, why only sent 400 men to conquer a country?
Peace.
[EDIT.1] In my comment area, Mr.Nayak said: “Do you have proof? Photos.. anything apart from a farce written by some PLA douche on their official website!”
Ok, Mr.Nayak. Before pointing others’ claim is baseless, why not watch some old books first?
I recommend an old book— “India China Border Dispute”, written by M.L.Sali, to you.
Note: M.L.Sali is an Indian. Though some descxtions like who attacked first are different from Chinese Source, still, my humble opinion is that its quality of content is much better than the wikipedia term.
At least, it doesn’t “create” some number(340 casualties) with no support of reliable references.
And in another book— “China''s Shadow Over Sikkim: The Politics of Intimidation” , written by G. S. Bajpai:
Thus, it seems PLA did deliver dead bodies to Indian side.
At least, PLA didn’t forge that part of the record.
So, Mr.Nayak, what’s your opinion now?
The key controversy is:
According to PLA’s source, it is “ PLA kept in place and did not chase Indian army.”
According to the records of M.L.Saili, it is:
Clearly, even the author didn’t think China’s intention is to occupy Sikkim’s land at that time.
Finally, again, that answer’s aim is to provide the information from the other side so people can know things more comprehensively, not just from one side.
我并没有假设印度朋友的主张是错的。
我只提供PLA对那场冲突的档案，这样大家可以获得双方的信息。
所有与“那都拉-楚拉冲突”词条的信息都来自印度方面。
所以来自中国方面的信息呢？（不一定正确）。
下面是PLA的记录：
第一次冲突开始于1967年9月11日。
7时30分，11名印度山地步兵（112旅的一个营）向那都拉附近的中国哨所挺进。
中国军队发出了严厉警告。
8时07分，印度军队首先开枪，并投掷手榴弹，导致中国指挥官Li Yancheng的死亡，以及6名中国士兵受伤。
解放军立即反击，使用了40式火箭发射器。
在7分钟内，67名印度士兵被杀。印度军队的防御工事被摧毁。
8点15分，印度军队开始撤离战场。解放军坚守阵地，没有追击印度军队。
印度第十七炮兵旅开始炮击。
随后，中国炮兵380团使用了82和120迫击炮进行反击。
在4天3夜的冲突中，印度军队损失了8个炮兵阵地，2个指挥所，2个岗哨，23个防御工事和2辆卡车。540名印度士兵伤亡。(7具尸体被留在中国境内。)
最后，印度炮兵在9月13日22时停止射击。
解放军在9月14日中午停止射击。
第二次冲突开始于10月1日。
11:20, 7名印度士兵越过边界，与掌握着印军尸体的解放军士兵发生冲突，但被赶回印度边境。
印度士兵随后开始射击。一名中国士兵死亡，一名受伤。然后中国士兵进行了反击。7名越过边境的印度士兵被打死。
然后印度炮兵使用51毫米和81毫米迫击炮，开始炮击。12时，中国炮兵进行了反击，造成195名印度士兵伤亡。29座印度防御工事被摧毁。
19:55分，印度炮兵停止射击，解放军也停止射击。
最终结果：
607名印度士兵伤亡。
123名中国士兵伤亡。
PLA缴获轻机枪1门，冲锋枪9门，步枪16支。
9月16日，印方挥舞白旗，要求进入中国领土。在签署了交付文件后，他们取回了14具尸体和24支缴获的枪支。没有发现中国士兵的尸体和武器留在印度一边。
再次强调，以上是解放军方面的记录。
我提出这些只是为了让大家能够得到来自双方的信息：
欢迎分享你的看法。
最初的回答是：印度政府从未正式宣布在1967年的那场小冲突中取得了胜利。
因此，基本上，如果你们政府都没有将其视为一场胜利，这种宣称有什么根据？
一位印度网民按照自己的意愿编辑了维基百科关于67年冲突的词条。看看这个术语下面的参考文献，你就会明白。
事实是，印度官员在9月16日要求解放军归还14具尸体、24把缴获的枪支和其他物品。
那个“340名死伤”的数据，我不知道他们是从哪里得来的。
如果他们“PLA攻入锡金，失败并且撤退了，留下340具尸体”的说法是正确的，
那么，
有照片吗？
有证据吗？
如果没有尸体、照片或者关于缴获武器的官方记录，也没关系。
另外中国攻击锡金能得到什么？
好吧，即使我假设你关于“中国是个坏蛋，想要占领锡金”的假设是正确的，
那么，为什么只派了400人去进攻一个国家？
祝和平。
编辑1：在我的评论区，Nayak先生说：“你有证据吗？照片之类的任何东西都可以，PLA在他们的官方网站上乱写的东西除外！”
好吧，Nayak先生，在指责别人的言论毫无根据之前，为什么先不看看一些旧书？
我向你推荐一本旧书：《印中边境冲突》，作者M.L.Sali。
注意：M.L.Sali是个印度人。虽然其中的某些诸如“谁先发起攻击”的描述与中国的来源不同，但以我的浅见，它的内容质量比维基百科词条要好得多。
至少，它没有在没有可靠参考的情况下“创造”一些数字(340人伤亡)。
而且在另一本书，G. S. Bajpai所著的《中国的阴影笼罩锡金：恐吓政治》中，可以看到：
PLA似乎确实向印度方面移交了尸体。
至少那部分记录不是PLA伪造的。
所以现在Nayak先生你怎么看？
关键的争议在于，“PLA坚守阵地，没有追逐印度军队。”
根据M.L.Saili的记录，是：
很明显，即使这位作者也不认为中国当时的意图是占领锡金的土地。
最后，再次强调，这个答案的目的是提供来自另一方的信息，这样人们就可以更全面地了解那件事，而不是只听一面之词。
Harsh Patel
@Chen Yankai Thank you for answering in a clear way so we can understand your perspective.
In Indian perspective it was considered an unofficial victory because it prevented a repeat of 1962 war. ( Sort of ‘we repelled another invasion’).
But frankly, Truth is first casualty in a war, maybe India was the aggressor, unfortunately this is something only few in government know.
As they say in Geopolitics, truth is always twisted to fit one''s narrative. This is true for every interaction between any two states.
谢谢你用清晰的方式回答，这样我们才能理解你的观点。
在印度看来，这是一场非官方的胜利，因为它避免了1962年战争的重演。(类似于‘我们击退了另一次入侵’)。
但坦率地说，真相是战争的第一个受害者，也许印度才是侵略者，不幸的是，只有少数政府官员知道这一点。
正如人们所说，在地缘政治方面，真相总是以符合自己的叙述遭到扭曲。对于任意两个国家之间的每一次互动，这句话都适用。
Chen Yankai
Thanks, my friend.
I didn’t see the notification of your comment.
Honestly, I don’t know the truth either. What I provided is just a record from Chinese side.
And I totally agree with your saying “As they say in Geopolitics, truth is always twisted to fit one''s narrative. ” :)
谢谢，我的朋友。
我没有看到你评论的通知。
说实话，我也不知道真相是什么。我提供的只是一份来自中方的记录。
而且我完全同意你的说法：“正如人们所说，在地缘政治方面，真相总是以符合自己的叙述遭到扭曲。”
Dev K Dutta
We have a fair idea of PLA claims and we don’t mind what the PLA likes to believe or not believe. We have our numbers and we have our figures in the right places. You have the freedom to be happy with your “overwhelming victory” in that war.
However, we’re quite sure about the message we have been able to convey to your PLA. They know their place and our guys know their place. Till that status quo is maintained all will be fine. You cross the line…all hell will break loose.
我们对PLA的主张有一个公平的想法，我们不介意PLA喜欢相信什么或不相信什么。我们有我们的数据，我们的数据有正确的来源。你有自由对你在那场战争中的“压倒性胜利”感到高兴。
然而，我们非常确定我们能够向你们的PLA传达信息。他们知道自己的位置，我们的人也知道自己的位置。只要维持现状，一切都没问题。如果你们越线了……你们就会大祸临头。
Chen Yankai
First, I never claimed it is an “overwhelming victory”. I even didn’t say PLA won in my answer.
Second, according to the old records from Indian side in the bottom of my answer, I think PLA’s record, at least, is not totally wrong.
If PLA crossed the line and attacked, losing hundreds men and retreated, where were the bodies? Indian army absolutely could make these bodies as bargain chips.
Like I mentioned before, the opposite thing is: It’s Indian official went into China territory to get back bodies and weapons captured by PLA. These were recorded by both Chinese side and Indian side at that time. How to explain that?
首先，我从未宣称这是一场“压倒性的胜利”。我的回答中甚至没有说PLA赢了。
第二，根据我的答案底部的印度方面的旧记录，我认为解放军的记录至少不是完全错误的。
如果解放军越线并发起进攻，损失了数百人并且撤退，那么尸体在哪里？印度军队绝对可以把这些尸体做成讨价还价的筹码。
就像我之前提到的，情况恰恰相反：印度官员进入中国领土拿回被PLA缴获的尸体和武器。当时中国和印度方面都对此进行了记录。这一点怎么解释？
Dev K Dutta
This entire discourse is about implications and so when you claimed that 600+ Indian soldiers were killed by your PLA in the 1967 war you wanted to imply that China had won that war. You’re at liberty to believe whatever you like but it won’t change the situation on the ground. India prevented Sikkim from going into Chinese hands and conveyed a strong message - 1962 is no longer a yardstick for intimidation. Don’t cross the line!
If our leadership had been alx in the early 1950s, we would have been able to prevent Chinese encroachment into Tibet and our territory of Aksai Chin in Jammu & Kashmir. That’s how we look at Aksai Chin and Tibet. It’s our prerogative. You’re not going to tell us how to look at these occupied areas just as we don’t tell you how to look at Arunachal Pradesh. You have your views and it’s your prerogative. Be happy with that.
As far as the bodies of the dead Chinese soldiers is concerned, you can rest assured that India has never and will never play dirty games with the dead bodies of enemy soldiers. Our culture and tradition forbids us to play dirty games with dead bodies. We don’t hide our casualties in wars and battles to influence historical records.
For us, the sacrifice and martyrdom of our soldiers is a reflection of strength, not weakness. When any of our soldiers makes the supreme sacrifice, we make it a point to let the world know about his/her martyrdom. It’s a matter of pride and inspiration for us. We know that the Chinese casualties were close to 500 in that war and our troops didn’t stop your troops from carrying away the dead bodies of their comrades in arms. We call it Honor. The dead deserve a decent funeral even if they are enemy soldiers.
FYI - captured dead bodies are usually returned by rival armies and ALWAYS returned by the Indian army. But captured weapons? Hell…No. Never. Indian, Chinese or any other army.
你的整个论述充满了暗示，你说你们PLA在1967年杀死了600多名印度士兵，就是想暗示中国赢得了那场战争。你喜欢相信什么就相信什么，这是你的自由，但这并不能改变当地的情况。印度阻止锡金落入中国之手，并传达了一个强烈的信息——1962年不再是恫吓的标准。不要越界！
如果我们的领导层在50年代早期保持警惕，我们原本能够阻止中国入侵西藏和我们在JK的阿克赛钦领土。这就是我们看待阿克赛钦和西藏的方式。这是我们的权力。你不要告诉我们如何看待那些被占领的地区，正如我们也不会告诉你们如何看待阿努纳恰尔邦（藏南）。你们有你们的看法，这是你们的权力。你们高兴就好。
至于中国士兵的尸体，你可以放心，印度从来没有，也永远不会拿敌人士兵的尸体玩肮脏的游戏。我们的文化和传统禁止我们玩尸体游戏。我们不会为了影响历史记录而隐瞒我们在战争和战斗中的伤亡。
对我们来说，我们士兵的牺牲和殉难反映的是力量，而不是软弱。如果我们的任何士兵做出了最高的牺牲，我们都会让世界知道他/她的牺牲。这是我们的骄傲和鼓舞方式。我们知道，在那场战争中，中国在这场战争中的伤亡人数接近500人，我们的军队没有阻止你们的军队带走他们战友的尸体。我们将这种做法称之为荣誉。即使是敌军士兵，他们也应该得到一个体面的葬礼。
仅供参考：缴获的死尸通常会归还给敌军，而且印度军队总是做到了这一点。但是缴获武器？天……不，永远不会。无论是印度人、中国人或者任何军队都不会。
Chen Yankai
Calm down my friend.
“607 Indian soldiers were killed or wounded.”
The record never say 607 were killed…
10–20% of the total casualties are expected to be killed, generally.
How many times do I need to illustrate: it’s just a record from one side. Don’t you think it’s unfair to watch information from only one side(India), especially like such things happening between two countries ?
“We know that the Chinese casualties were close to 500 in that war and our troops didn’t stop your troops from carrying away the dead bodies of their comrades in arms.”—any records? Why was that moral action not recorded in both books written by Indians? Not 340? Now it becomes 500. You still didn’t explain why Indian bodies were in China territory.
PLA did return weapons in 62 and 67. It’s not difficult to google it.
As for your saying that India could prevent China from retaking Tibet in 1950, honestly speaking, considering PVA’s performance in Korean War, it’s hard to say. Korean war
BUT maybe you are quite right. Who knows.
冷静一点，我的朋友。
“607名印度士兵死亡或受伤。”
一般来说，总伤亡人数的10-20%会死掉。
需要我说明多少次？这只是一边的记录。难道你不认为只从一边(印度)看信息是不公平的吗？尤其是像这样的发生在两个国家之间的事情？
“我们知道，在那场战争中，中国在这场战争中的伤亡人数接近500人，我们的军队没有阻止你们的军队带走他们战友的尸体。”有任何记录吗？为什么两本印度人写的书里都没有记录这种高尚的行为？这次又不是340了？又变成了500？你还是没有解释为什么印度人的实体出现在中国的土地上。
PLA在62年和67年确实归还了武器。随便搜索一下，很容易搜到。
至于你说印度原本可以在1950年阻止中国收复西藏，老实说，考虑到印度军队在朝鲜战争中的表现，很难说。
但是你说的没准非常正确呢。谁知道呢。
Kaushalendra Yadav
Seeing their CO fall, the Grenadiers became mad with rage. In a fit of fury, they came out of their trenches, and attacked the Chinese post, led by Captain P.S. Dagar. The company of 18 Rajput, under Major Harbhajan Singh, and the sappers and pioneers working on the fence had been caught in the open, and suffered heavy casualties from the Chinese firing. Realising that the only way to neutralise the Chinese fire was a physical assault, Harbhajan shouted to his men, and led them in a charge on the Chinese position. Several of the Indian troops were mowed down by Chinese machine guns, but those who reached the Chinese bunkers used their bayonets and accounted for many of the enemy. Both Harbhajan and Dagar lost their lives in the action, which developed into a full scale battle, lasting six days. Sagat had asked for some medium guns, and
I have copied it from a book of a soldier of that incident.i think these lines will give you your answer about why indian soldier bodies found in Chinese territory.
“……看到他们指挥官阵亡，掷弹兵愤怒的发了疯。在一阵狂怒中，他们在上尉P.S. Dagar的率领下走出了战壕，袭击了中国哨所。Harbhajan Singh少校指挥下的18名拉杰普特人的连队，以及搭设围栏的工兵和先锋，被困在开阔地带，他们在中国人的射击下伤亡惨重。在意识到压制中国人火力的唯一方法是发起肉搏后，Harbhajan对他的人大喊，并带领他们向中国阵地发起冲锋。几名印度士兵被中国的机枪扫射倒地，但那些到达中国地堡的士兵用刺刀杀死了许多敌人。Harbhajan和Dagar都在这次行动中牺牲了，这次行动发展为一场大规模战斗，持续了6天。Sagat要求一些中型火炮，而且……”
以上内容是从一位经历过那场冲突的士兵所写的书里复制来的。我认为这些句子可以让你明白，为什么印度士兵的尸体会出现在中国领土上。
Rajiv Prasad
If I say you to watch the movie PALTAN you would say that it is issued by the Indian officials so you will definitely disagree with me. Similarly the proof you are providing in your answer is issued by some PLA officials so how can we believe this. So you just keep amusing us with your ridiculous answer we won''t mind your mistakes.
如果我要你看电影《帕尔坦》，你会说那是印度官员发布的，所以你肯定不会同意我的看法。那你提供的证据也是某些PLA官员发布的，我们怎么会相信它呢。所以你可以继续用你可笑的答案逗我们，我们不会介意你的错误。
Aditya Pratap Singh
But man according to neutral sources Chinese casualties were far more higher than Indian casualties, search wiki
但是根据中立消息来源，中国人的伤亡人数远远高于印度人。看看维基百科吧。
Patrick Koh
Problem is, who wrote the wiki : )
问题在于，那些维基百科的词条是谁写的。
----------------------
Shunit Datta, lives in India (2002-present)
I agree with the other quorans that it was not a war but a series of localized conflicts.
It is absolutely true that India defeated China in the 1967 conflict.The conflict had mainly occured because China (Peoples Liberation Army) had infiltrated into Sikkim on 1st October 1967. What followed was a series millitary clashes that took place between China and India at the end of which India was able to push out the Chinese infiltrators resulting in a Indian Victory.
我同意其他网友的回答，这不是一场战争，而是一系列局部冲突。
印度在1967年冲突中击败中国是绝对真实的。这场冲突主要是是因为中国（PLA）在1967年10月1日渗透进入锡金。随后，中国和印度之间发生了一系列的军事冲突，印度击退了中国的渗透者，取得了胜利。
----------------------
Michael Luo
Yeah, India defeated China in 1962, 1967, and 1987. India will win over China forever!
是啊，印度在1962、1967和1987年都击败了中国。印度会永远击败中国。
----------------------
Jaskaran Singh
Yes, india pushed back chinese forces in 1967, but i wouldnt consider it a war. It was a skirmish between both nations with minimum casualties. Although, india is not the India of 1962 anymore so is not china. In a real war, china will easily defeat india in terms of military power and economy. It is best interests of india to not to engage in any military conflict for at least few decades
是的，印度在1967年击退了中国军队。但我不觉得这是一场战争。这只是两国之间的一场小冲突，而且伤亡有限。但是印度不再是1962年的印度，中国也一样。在实际战争中，中国在军事力量和经济方面都会轻易击败印度。在至少几十年内，印度挑起任何军事冲突都不符合印度的最佳利益。
----------------------
Benedicto Braz
India suffered casualties of 900, China only 6, and it was reported in Indian media in 1967.
However, several year later, India paid Indian DNA writers to write in Wiki to make false claims in Wiki.
India lost heavily and then no more armed conflicts between India and China. until last month, June 26 2017.
印度的伤亡为900人，中国只有6人，这是印度媒体1967年的报道。
然而，几年后，印度付钱给那些有印度血统的作者，去撰写维基百科词条，在维基百科上造假。
印度输得很惨，然后印度和中国之间就再也没有发生武装冲突了。直到上个月，2017年6月26日。
----------------------
Eld Sun, BSc from Univerisity of Bedfordshire (2007)（贝德福德郡大学）
yes. badly.
all India army was protect by Shiva.
PLA just can not won. they just can not .
China will never defeat India i believe.
hope India stop invade us. because if they try, they can take Beijing easily.
For the Shiva~~~~~~~
是的，很惨。
印度所有的军队都获得了湿婆的保护。
PLA无法获胜，就是这样。
我相信中国永远无法打败印度。
希望印度不要再侵略我们，因为如果印度一出手，他们就能轻易攻占北京。
为了湿婆~~~
----------------------
Vishnu Kumar, lives in India (1999-present)
Neither chinese product nor its word has guarantee.
We took control over whole Sikkim and still it is our state. PLA were recklessly forced behind and thrown out of sikkim. The PLA cooks story for its face saving. They dont allow other media or uncensored media in china so that people could not know the truth. Around 340 soldiers of chinese were killed with kess than 100 indian casualties. Its the only truth and world (except comunist party of china) accepts it.
Even they massacred more than 10,000 chinese (As per world not communist party of china) on Tinamen Square but censored media and chinese govt tells only 300 were killed. Shame shame…
Chinese media has only subscribers on Youtube because of those Panda videos. No body watch another news on it as they know its authenticity.
We never mind what your censored chinese media tells you cooked story. The whole story from chinese are false and PLA has cooked on its own. It was a clear cut victory for India as our target ware acheived. Moreover, chinese had 4 times more casualties than india.
And how can a censored media of china will report it!. And Indian govt clearly claims its victory.
Chinese govt, media and PLA are only good in cooking stories. Infact they also lost war with vietnam but claims its victory.
Meanwhile chinese thinks that whole world reads chinese textbooks. Shame on these type of brainwashed narrow minded chinese citizens.
Before raising questions on Wikipedia, check the credibility of your own media on govt. Check how many people outside china trusts on chinese information and products. Wikipedia is the source of credible knowledge for world except china. Infact chinese govt banned wikipedia as they didnt want any source of true and credible knowledge to exist in china. Now get lost.
Now please go through wikipedia. Most authentic information.
Nathu La and Cho La clashes - Wikipedia
中国人的话，跟中国的产品一样，都毫无保证。
我们控制整个锡金，现在它依然是我们的邦。PLA被无情的赶走，赶出了锡金。PLA为了保住面子而炮制故事。他们不允许中国出现其他媒体或者未经审查的媒体，这样人们就不会知道真相。大约有340名中国人被杀，而印度有100人死伤。这是唯一的事实，全世界都知道。
甚至他们在XX屠杀了10000中国人，但审查了媒体。
中国媒体在YouTube上有人看，唯一的原因就是那些熊猫的视频。没人看他们报的新闻，因为大家都知道其真实性。
你们中国媒体搞审查，报道炮制的新闻，我们从来不在乎。中国人说的都是假的，都是PLA自己编造的。那场战争对印度来说是一场一清二楚的胜利，因为我们的目标都实现了。还有，中国人的伤亡比印度多4倍。
看看中国的审查媒体是怎么报道的！而且印度政府清楚的说明了那是一场胜利。
中国ZF、媒体和PLA唯一擅长的就是编造故事。实际上，他们在越南也打输了，却声称那是一场胜利。
与此同时，中国人还以为全世界都看中国的教科书。那些被洗脑的思维狭隘的中国人真可耻。
在对维基百科提出质疑之前，先看看你们自己的媒体对ZF报道的真实性。看看中国以外有多少人相信中国的信息和产品。维基百科对全世界来说都是一个值得信任的知识来源，就中国不信。实际上中国ZF封杀了危机百科，因为他们不想让中国存在任何真实可信的知识来源。现在滚蛋吧。
现在请仔细看危机百科。它是最真实的信息。
----------------------
Winters Wu
all in ONE sentence:if they indians had won any war or conflict,they would not be so much more hating China than any other countries since that time till now,then all the time,all the way.
no one who got victory would hate the ONE who got lose.spiritual victory cannot make u stronger.
keep in peace.
我只说一句：如果他们印度人真的打赢了任何战争或者冲突，那么从那时起，他们对中国的仇恨就不会这么多，多到超过任何其他国家，然后一直一直持续到现在。
任何获得胜利的人都不会仇恨输掉的人。精神胜利法不会让你变强大。
保持平和吧。
----------------------
Hampton William
A:
Indian Media report in 1967: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 6.
Indian Media report in 1970s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 12.
Indian Media report in 1980s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 120.
Indian Media report in 1990s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 220.
Indian Media report in 2000s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 300.
Indian Media report in 2010ss: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 400.
....
Prediction:
Indian Media report in 2020s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 4,000.
答案1：
印度媒体1967年的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，6名PLA受伤；
印度媒体70年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，12名PLA受伤；
印度媒体80年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，120名PLA受伤；
印度媒体90年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，220名PLA受伤；
印度媒体00年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，300名PLA受伤；
印度媒体2010年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，100名PLA受伤；
预测：
印度媒体2020年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，4000名PLA受伤；
B:
Because India lost heavily again in 1967.
India army: death over 200, wound: over 600.
PLA death: 0, Wound: 6.
The US general comments:
Indian army is just like a butter, PLA is just like a hot knife.
If PLA did not capture all Indian soldiers and weapons, and then returned to India in 1962 war, India would then claim India achieved a great victory against China in PLA in 1962.
Similarly India would then post a question like
"Why does China deny the fact that they lost the war against India in 1962".
That''s why India has been good at nothing, but false claiming for the past 70 years in the world.
答案2：
因为印度在1967年损失惨重。
印军：死亡超过200人，受伤超过600人；
PLA：死亡0，受伤6人。
美国将军的评论：
印度军队就像一块黄油，PLA就像一把滚烫的刀子。
如果在1962年战争中，PLA没有缴获所有的印度士兵和武器，然后再归还给印度，印度肯定会说印度在1962年打败中国，取得了一场伟大的胜利。
印度人还会发出这样的一个问题：
“中国在1962年战争中输给了印度，为什么中国否认这个事实？”
这就是印度为什么在过去70年一事无成，却一直在全世界面前大吹法螺的原因。
C:
India is so amusing to make up story to amuse Indians.
India lost again heavily, but it was a small conflict.
It is understood that PLA won 1962.
In 1967, China just started the culture revolution and preparing for the H2 bombs.
Tibet had riots incited by India, CIA etc. Also Indian army knew that PLA would not fire first shot.
Indian army has been exploring some small opportunities (not war, just some small fights to indicate that Indian army is able to achieve victories against PLA).
So Indian army initiated the attack on PLA position: but with dead: 200, injured 540, then Indian army stopped the attack.
PLA" injured: 6, death: 0, (1 dead before the conflict by the Indian soldier).
To PLA, it was a small piece of cake.... no need to mention it.
This kind of small conflicts happened along China and Russia border, especially along Xinjang and Russia, it happened almost every day in 1962 and 1967, believed it was Russia way to help India. Or India aligned together with the USSR to make troubles for PLA.
答案3：
印度喜欢编造故事让印度人笑口常开，这一点很搞笑。
印度损失惨重，但那只是一场小规模冲突。
不消说PLA打赢了1962年战争。
吐蕃的暴乱就是印度和CIA之流挑起的。印度军队也知道PLA不会打第一枪。
印度军队一直在寻找小机会（不是战争，只是一些小冲突，目的是表明印度军队能够打败PLA，取得胜利。）
所以印度军队开始攻击PLA哨所：但是死了200，伤了540，然后印度军队停止了这次攻击。
PLA受伤6人，无人死亡（在冲突之前，有一人死于印度士兵之手）。
对于PLA来说，这只是一碟小菜……没有提起的必要。
这种小冲突在中国和俄罗斯边境到处发生，尤其是新疆和俄罗斯之间的边境，在1962年和1967年几乎每天都在发生，我认为这是俄罗斯在用这种方式帮助印度。或者是印度与苏联勾结在一起给PLA找麻烦。
D:
Just reveal a small secret with you:
In later Korean war, it was position to positional fight between the US soldiers and PLA.
For one example:
PLA was defending its position from the US'' attack from air, ground troops with over 500 soldiers.
PLA was defending with 8 PLA soldiers (well prepared as it was mountains areas).
After 12 hours fights:
All PLA dead: 8
US casualties: death 200, wound over 300.
PLA finally lost its position to US, and the survived US surprised that there were only 8 PLA in defending their position.
In 1990s, the survived US soldiers went to China and ask PLA to explain what happened in that conflict as US still did not believe that there were only 8 PLA in the conflict.
Now come back to 1967 conflicts.
PLA knew that Indian army would attack PLA position one way or another (small war), as Indian government wanted to give moral to Indians, remember Indian army were scared to death to PLA.
So you then know what happened.
Indian casualties: Death 200, Wound 540
PLA casualties: Death: 0, wound 6.
Indian army never experienced any serious and tough combats fights, as one US general said: Indian army is just like a butter and PLA is just like a hot knife.
Do not boast how hard the butter is, it is just a butter.
答案4：
告诉大家一个小秘密：
在朝鲜战争后期，美国士兵和PLA之间进行着阵地对阵地的战争。
举个例子：
PLA防守一个阵地，面对美国来自空中的攻击，还有超过500名的地面部队。
而PLA的防守兵力只有8个PLA士兵（因为是山区，所以准备的很好）。
经过12小时的战斗：
PLA的阵亡人数8人，
美军的伤亡则是死200，伤员超300。
PLA的这个阵地终于输给了美国，而幸存下来的美军惊讶的发现只有8个人防守这个阵地。
90年代，幸存的美军士兵前往中国，要求PLA解释为什么会发生那样的战斗，因为美国人依旧不相信战斗中只有8个PLA战士。
我们再说1967年冲突吧。
PLA知道印度军队会时不时的攻击PLA的阵地（小型战争），因为印度政府想给印度人涨涨士气，因为印度军队对PLA怕得要死。
所以大家都知道接下来会发生什么。
印度伤亡：死200，伤员540。
PLA伤亡：死0，伤员6人。
印度军队从来没有经历过任何严肃和艰苦的作战，就像一名美国将军所说：印度军队就像一块黄油，而PLA就像一把烧热的刀子。
不要吹嘘黄油有多硬，黄油就是黄油。
E:
In 1967, it was Indian army only attempted revenge over the loss of 1962!
Difference between 1967 and 1962.
In 1962, PLA was offensive.
In 1967, Indian army was offensive. PLA was defending its position.
Indian army suffered heavy casualties and stopped offensive action. Since then, there has been no more conflicts with casualties on both sides.
PLA retreated 20 km from the original line after the short 1962 war.
Indian government and army would announce the great victory over PLA and killed over 10,000 PLA, evidence was that PLA run away even 20 km from the original line, if PLA did not tape it.
Indian government, army and media desperately need a so called victory over PLA, and thus initiated a short attack, but with:
Indian casualties: Death: 200, wound: over 500
PLA casualties: Death: 0, wound: 6.
India paid India-origin to write so called victories in internet to fool Indians.
Anyway, India has been well known to have the freedom of making false claim.
That''s why India and West have banned the Australia journalist report on the true India and China war for over 50 years!
(For those who are able to read in Chinese, you may check 1967 conflicts between India and India in Chinese media (it was simply half page to indicate that there was a conflict and casualties on both sides as it was not a big news in China).
答案5：
1967年，印度军队只是想为1962年的失败进行报复！
1967与1962的不同在于：
1962年，PLA是进攻方。
而1967年，印度军队是进攻方。PLA则在防守自己的阵地。
印度军队遭受了惨重的伤亡，停止了进攻行动。从那时起，双方都再也没有进行有伤亡的冲突。
短暂的1962年战争之后，PLA从原本的战线后撤了20km。
如果PLA没有对此录像，印度政府和军队会宣布取得了对PLA的大胜，并且杀死了超过10000名PLA，证据就是PLA从原本的战线逃跑了20km。
印度政府、军队和媒体急切的想要一场胜过PLA的所谓的胜仗，所以发起了一场短期的进攻，但是却得到了这一个结果：
死亡200人，受伤超过500人；
PLA的伤亡：死亡0人，受伤6人。
印度收买了印度裔在网上编写了所谓的胜利，来愚弄印度人。
无论如何，印度在编造虚假主张方面一直很出名，他们有这种自由嘛。
这就是为什么一位澳大利亚记者真实的报道了印度和中国之间的战争，而他50多年来一直遭到印度和西方的封杀！
（对于那些读得懂中文的人，可以去看看中国媒体对印度和中国1967年冲突所做的报道。那个报道只有简简单单的半页纸，仅仅指出两国之间发生了一次冲突，并说明了伤亡人数，因为这件事在中国并不是什么大新闻。）
F:
Love to see Indian government to fool Indians for decades.
India tried the only revenge on PLA position, but suffered heavy loss. And then India had given up and surrendered since 1967.
However, India made up so called victory against PLA in 1967.
If you look at Indian media in 1967, it stated that PLA wound 6.
Then slowing Indian media as always exaggerated the figure: 6, then 12
Recently, 200 and even 300.
By year 2025, the Indian media would say that PLA casualties, 3000
Poor India.
答案6：
我很喜欢看印度政府几十年来愚弄印度人的做法。
印度只想对PLA的哨所进行报复，却遭受了惨重的损失。然后从1967年以来，印度就放弃并投降了。
然而，印度编造了所谓的1967年打败PLA取得胜利的故事。
看看印度媒体1967年的报道，它说的是PLA受伤6人。
然后印度媒体就一如既往的夸大这个数字，从6变成12，最近是200，甚至300。
等到2025年，印度媒体会说PLA的伤亡达到3000人。
可怜的印度。
G:
In 1962, India knew clearly who were commanders and leaders of PLA in the conflict.
In 1967, the writers even did not know who were the field commanders and leaders of the PLA for the 1967 conflict. Thus just simply put Mao Zedong. Low IQ Indians and the writers even did not know how to lie.
(for example, there is a border shooting between Pakistan and India army now, Pakistan field commander are “Mosign”, however, Indian border field commander is unknown, thus it is Modi!)
India took five years to attack PLA position, but even today still do not know who were the commander and leaders of PLA whom they fought with in 1967!!!
1962年，印度清楚的知道那场战争中PLA的指挥员和领导人是谁。
而1967年，那些“作者”甚至不知道1967年冲突中，PLA的战地指挥官和领导人是谁。所以只能简单的说是毛。智商低下的印度人和那些“作者”甚至连撒谎都不会。
（就好比，现在巴基斯坦和印度军队之间发生了一场边境开火事件，巴基斯坦的战地指挥官是Mosign，而印度的战地指挥官不知道名字，所以就是莫迪！）
印度花了5年时间进攻PLA的哨所，但是直到今天依然不知道1967年与他们作战的PLA是谁指挥和领导的！
很赞哦！ ()
