Three months before the war, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Hanfu warned R.K. Nehru of military action if India did not stop its advancements in the western sector
On July 17, 1962, three months before China launched its offensive, the country’s Ambassador in New Delhi, Pan Zili, sent a note to the leadership in Beijing discussing the stalemate in negotiations with India, and expressing concern about ties between the neighbours. Pan was of the opinion that India’s unwillingness — or inability — to negotiate and agree to a settlement reflected internal troubles. “In the contacts we have had these days, we have found that India has reached a deadlock with China on political and military issues because of its own economic difficulties,” Pan wrote. The note was among documents from 1949-65 recently declassified by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Archives in Beijing.
“India,” Pan added, “does not get on with its neighbours and conflicts among its internal factions are fierce, particularly on the issue of Nehru’s succession.” Pan wrote that the then Defence Minister, V.K. Krishna Menon, in his opinion, “showed the desire [to negotiate] and seemingly he considered that once India failed in war, his position would be greatly affected”.
Pan noted that handcuffed by domestic pressures, India would not be able to make any kind of concession that would lead to a mutually acceptable settlement. India, he said, had settled on a dual-track approach: “On the one hand, India seemed to be willing to negotiate peacefully; on the other hand, it looked for loopholes on the west border. It went forward into our interior, increased its posts, and changed the settled facts in order to bargain with us.” The Ambassador concluded that China needed to “strengthen military struggle on the west border and prevent India from going forward”. “But,” he cautioned, “we should be careful and not provoke military conflicts. Additionally, we may make more contacts with the India side.”
An opportunity and a warning
The Chinese government followed Pan’s advice, arranging two last-ditch meetings in Geneva — between its Vice Foreign Minister, Zhang Hanfu, and R.K. Nehru, and between Foreign Minister Chen Yi, a vastly experienced former People’s Liberation Army General, and Krishna Menon. The Chinese leaders saw the meetings as a final opportunity to ask Nehru to halt advancements in the west and avert a military confrontation.
‘Fruitless’
In a July 20, 1962 note, the Foreign Ministry appeared to come to the conclusion that the meeting with R.K. Nehru was fruitless. “He did not put forward new issues,” the note said. “Our side emphasised that the border issue was serious and if India did not withdraw troops, it should bear all the results.” Reflecting on his meeting with Zhang, R.K. Nehru later acknowledged the significance of the warning, as A.G. Noorani recounted in a Frontline article. Nehru said: “[Zhang] said, in their notes they sent to us they had indicated, ‘It is bound to lead to a serious military conflict.’ May be the nature and scale and magnitude of the conflict was not anticipated, but I am not prepared to say that they did not give us sufficient warning that military encounters might follow. My own interpretation is that as in India, so also in China, there were various schools of thought. May be the military elements, coming on the top, wanted a clash.”
Disagreeable breakfast
Three days later, on July 23, Chen Yi met Krishna Menon in Geneva over breakfast. In a note of the meeting, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said Chen had complained of India’s continuing “advancements” in the west. “Menon suggested that both sides make clear western border lines… and [regard] the area between the two lines as a controversial area,” the note said. “In the area, both sides could establish posts, but they would not attack each other. There should be a distance between posts of each side. Personnel in each post should be roughly equal, and patrols of each side should not cross the border line that it required. Mr. Chen instantly opposed the suggestion and said it was in fact to circle an area in China as an area where Indian border guards could walk freely. China could not agree it.” Chen suggested both sides issue a communique stating India and China would negotiate on the border to avoid conflict. Krishna Menon declined.
The two meetings left the Chinese convinced that negotiations would lead nowhere. On August 24, 1962, Ambassador Pan, sent a note to Beijing attacking Jawaharlal Nehru’s unwillingness to negotiate. “Nehru made the negotiation door seem open and closed, and overestimated his own cunningness.” He suggested to Beijing that the government make efforts to publicise its position more widely. “Our aim must be to make the Indian masses and middle classes know that it is actually China that desired to negotiate and ease the tension,” Pan said, “and that Nehru did not have sincerity for negotiation.”
Twelve days before China launched its offensive, Zhou Enlai, the Premier, almost appeared to lay out an explanation for military action in a meeting with the Ambassador of the Soviet Union in Beijing. Without offering any evidence, he claimed “India would possibly wage a large-scale war on the eastern section of the Sino-Indian border”. “If they launch the attack,” he said, “we will definitely defend ourselves.” Zhou also hit out at Soviet military support to India. “Indians have used MiG helicopters, made in the Soviet Union, to throw objects on the western and eastern sections of Sino-Indian border and transport military necessities. They sometimes even used transport airplanes from Soviet Union. It affects China’s soldiers on the front that India carried out provocation by aircraft made in the Soviet Union.”
Zhou and the Chinese leadership saw the final three months as making a military confrontation inevitable, and blamed Nehru entirely for the course of events. “This serious Sino-Indian border conflict is completely caused by the Indian Government’s long-term deliberate attempt,” Zhou alleged in a November 13, 1962 letter to Ayub Khan in Pakistan. The failure of the two meetings in July had emerged as a final turning point. Following his meeting with Krishna Menon in Geneva, Chen Yi flew to Beijing the next day and reported to Zhou Enlai. “After hearing Chen Yi’s report, Zhou commented, “It seems as though Nehru wants a war with us”“, John W. Garver writes in China’s Decision for War with India in 1962. “Yes”, Chen replied. Menon had showed no sincerity regarding peaceful talks, but “merely intended to deal in a perfunctory way with China”. “At least we made the greatest effort for peace,” Zhou reportedly replied. “Premier,” Chen replied, “Nehru’s forward policy is a knife. He wants to put it in our heart. We cannot close our eyes and await death.”
(The series, China Files 1962, is concluded.)
Keywords: bilateral relations, Tibetan rebellion, Sino-Indian border, India-China war, 1962 war, Zhou Enlai,





The Chinese could have marched right up to New Delhi to impose a
government of their choice, but withdrew after ejecting Indians from the
disputed area. Please give them credit for this.
Agrees with Om shakti here I think another article on
"that the Indian leadership had neglected the army, the jawans were ill
equipped and not trained for mountain warfare."
is essentially what is required after these notes.
What steps have been taken since?Can Hindu cover there
Why is all this not taught in our history books? Teach, show, explain BOTH sides. We need to learn history, learn FROM history - not a one sided narrative and glorification. Rana Pratap was a brave man, but was he wise, as a leader and as a military tactician, yet we sing his laurels, without understanding. Our military colleges eulogize him. What's the point of learning history like this? No wonder we don't learn anything. Why cant we do better?
I would like to mention that the Indian advancement is in the area which
India claims i.e in Aksai chin. Indian forces never went into mainland
china. It is well known fact that it was China which started the
aggression. Nehru asked for negotiation with China only when china stops militarizing the border. Strange thing about china is that it felt India
as an aggressor.
If Mr.Nehru was adamant with his "Forward" policy,it was likely that some other powers advised him and pressurised him. He perhaps thought if he remained firm the chinese would come round to accept Mcmohn line in the east and some adjustment in west could be worked out.
Mr. Nehru openly told the news men that he had issued orders to the army to eject chinese personnel from the areas that India claimed.This gave the chinese an excuse to indulge in Military adventure. The Cuba missile crisis had tied down US&USSR. This gave an opportunity to launch an attack.
Have we ever learnt some lessons from HISTORY? The answer is NO.Instead of mending our ways from the blunders made in the past we are looking more of our selfish individual interest or for Political Party (Vote Banks)all political parties are supporting each other when it comes to corruption but start playing politics in case of important matters regarding our nation.Sorry to say we always had been a divided lot, we are still the same and there is no silver lining in the clouds for future to think for nation.
Thanks for publishing this informative report.
While the archival work is interesting, I find it strange that the author leaves out the
larger context to conclude the China Files series)
1. the mis-perception by China of India's imperialistic and aggressive moves over
Tibet (refer to the meeting Khrushchev had in Beijing on October 2, 1959)
2. the premature end of the 'Great Leap Forward' in 1961 which led to massive
famine and impoverishment of the rural masses and left Mao quite isolated after this
catastrophic fiasco, therefore a military success would.
3. the fact that the 'self defense' offensive was in fact a war of aggression, carefully
and secretly planned, while the negotiations were going on.
4. that the Indian leadership had neglected the army, the jawans were ill equipped
and not trained for mountain warfare.
5. the Indian leadership had also misestimated the intransigence of the Chinese and
the resolution of our Socialist brothers to go to war, therefore a heading on a
collision course
In brief, a poor conclusion
Please Email the Editor