I would get my job back.

Yeah, pretty much they fill the same heirarchial station as warrant officers, for the same reasons: experience, leadership, battle honors etc. But arent some warrant officers so assigned because of technical expertise (I might be quite wrong on that count)? Where as JCOs are purely for the stated reasons and some for extraordinary reasons like chaplins (b/c religious issues are a tricky thing to handle in Indian Army) and Olympic/equivalent international achievements.

"And 100 years ago we SACKED Beijing with the Expeditionary Force!" When you say "We", I take it that you mean the Indian conscript soldiers who were themselves conquored by the british in the first place?

I believe you are saying the same thing about human factors as I said (with some factual mistakes), but continue to live in the past. The same accomplishments of China today are a liability in terms of doctrination of infantry, and have transformed into a plus for India. Less than 50% of Chinese are rural today, while 70% of Indians are rural. Almost every knowladgeable poster here will agree that, barring extraordinary difference in equipment, the nation that can put up the most number of tough village boys will win the foot war. Period.

Indians used heavy artillery, but lost: Agreed. Indians had Navy, Air and strategic superiority: BS. Why? Having equipment and using it are throughly different things. Indians lacked, and lack the political will to fight Chinese. Then Soviet AND US diplomats advised a stand-down: We simply couldnt face their combined wrath for starting what could have been a full blown nuclear war. (Chinese had nuclear weapons, Indians could develop it in few weeks if need be)Instead we settled for getting back 80% of the occupied land.

Yes, Indian TRIBUTARY soldiers (Rajput and Sikh regiments that participated in the expedition were tributary states, something more complicated Chinese custom since it recognized the individual FREEDOM of the soldier) under British upon the behest of MANCHU OVERLORDS of Chinese.

"However, if we look at current pictures, neither india nor china have fought a major war during the 80s or the 90s. Neither of them have brought to bear their forces in battlefield conflict, so you can't ask history to be your guide." i agree. the determining element in that conflict was that the indian troops were not aclimatized to the altitude: that factor was the decisive one. next time conditions would be different. what about my statement about indians being a peaceful country and never invading another country in the span of 1,000 years? a desi told it to me. is it accurate? he didn't count border conflicts with pakistan, i assume.

India is never peaceful, but it is never abitious either: therein lies the paradox. Modern India was created only 57 years back, but a simple interpretation of the name is land of the Indus, and it is ABSOLUTELY TRUE that no Indian Army has EVER crossed it under its own political guidance. So in that context incrusions into Pakistan (which has a better claim to name India than India) during the wars is true. But modern (3000 year old) Indians have repeatedly crossed Indus under others' political guidance (Persians, Brits, an Italian etc.). So while peaceful nature of Indians is NEVER true, not invading other countries is ALWAYS true. Sort of like Swiss between Reformation and Napoleon; Never on their own, but often under others.

Since the beginning of civilization in the Indian subcontinent, some part of India was always at war with one another, foreign invaders or the British until 1857. From 1857 to 1947 was no peaceful time and countless revolutionaries lost their lives to achieve freedom. Gandhi was a great peaceful soul, but was totally impractical. He is an incorrect mascot for Indians who are intrinsically a violent people. Come to think of ti, even after 1947, India and Pakistan have been at war. It was Undivided India once.

Yep, fundamentally Warrants normally are there due to capability and expertise, so they're in the job for a purpose.