http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War#Events_leading_...
I'm confused what you mean about "blatant abuse of Indian trust." It throws pretty much everything else you say into question.
Often they blame Nehru for being naïve, whilst at the same time blaming China for betrayal. I don't think those two arguments are very compatible.
In the end it was probably beneficial for India. They modernised their army, which let them defeat (Chinese ally) Pakistan pretty comprehensively.
But anyway, the Chinese military was pretty efficient in this war, which goes against the original article.
As far as the two arguments go, I don't see the incompatibility. Can you share your thoughts about this?
Chinese approach was rather brute force, they just poured a lot of soldiers there, far from efficient.
If it was a "betrayal" then Nehru wasn't naïve (because betrayal implies deliberately misleading). OTOH, if Nehru was naïve, then it wasn't a betrayal (because it was so clear to everyone except Nehru that something was going to happen).
I think the truth is somewhere in between. I haven't studied it the conflict in depth, but it seems to me that China's policy towards the Indian border region changed (at least partially because of Indian actions), and India didn't realize it quickly enough.
This behaviour is typical for PRC. All they seem to want is new territory for themselves. Even now they dispute about Indian territory and frequently undermine borders by intruding.