The home minister also pointed out that it was up to Pakistan to ensure that such terror acts were never repeated by its citizens against India. "The price they will pay if this is repeated will be enormous," he warned.
This was Mr. Chidambaram on NDTV last evening, but could easily have been any other incumbent over the past two decades. I can imagine the snickers of derision this would have invoked across the border. What, can I ask, has the "price" been for all the attacks inflicted on us. The attack on Mumbai came not six months after the Indian embassy in Kabul was attacked. We used the same words, the same empty promises of retribution, the same attempt at "building international opinion" against such attacks. Yet, Mumbai was attacked, as it seems now, with impunity.
In the same interview, the home minister was asked about what India was looking for, and his response was - that India seeks a "guarantee from Pakistan" that such attacks will not be repeated. Haven't we been there before? What guarantees and from whom. Importantly WHAT will we do if such a guarantee is flouted. In fact, WHY are we NOT taking those steps TODAY?
In the past, all that the perpetrators of such crimes had to do was to wait for a change of political guard. In fact, with the present spineless dispensation, the attackers do not even have to bother for a change. Mumbai alone has been targetted twice in the past 2 years, and other Indian cities have been brought into the fold of such attacks with impunity.
We are admonished that "war is not a solution". The question is - are we not already at war for the past two decades? What will it require to call India at war - an attack on parliament ... er.. that already happened. What about an attack on India's key economic structures, the stock exchanges, the business districts in metros et al .... er... tick that off too. Well, I guess an attack on Indian property overseas would be an act of war... that too! I guess, since we have geriatrics ruling the country, the only definition of war would be an invasion across the border - but you know what - that happened too...
I recommend that we disband the Indian Army. After all what we need is a National Relief Force - that will take care of people in the event of a natural disaster (currently the most active use of the Indian National Army). As for guarding the borders, or taking on hostile neighbours, we have already exported that task to the "international community". I wonder if there is anyone who can put out a set of condition under which the Indian armed forces will be called upon to act - I doubt it will ever happen despite the need and the provocation. What, therefore I ask, is the need to incur the cost to maintain such a huge force - much better to divert the resources into policing and other activities which we can do within our borders.
The cold war did not ignite into a nuclear war simply because of the doctrine of MAD (mutually assured destruction). The simple construct behind that was the willingness and ability to use WMD's if required. Once one party to a conflict knows that the other is not willing to escalate it no matter what the provocation, simple game theory will suggest that there is no protection against attack. India has repeatedly shown itself unwilling to escalate. Therefore, the enemy can chose its time, place and method of attack, and we have to defend (if that) from a position of weakness. The fact that this simple principle is ignored by the powers-that-be smacks of complete pussilanimity at best and treachery at worst.
"Fear has its use, but cowardice has none. ... The trouble is that we often die many times before death overtakes us." - Mahatma Gandhi
A recent article from Brahma Chellany in the Hindustan Times, makes some interesting points.
As our home minister jets to the US to seek to provide "proof" of the source of attacks, some questions come to mind -
1) What if the US continues to do what it has done so far (provided the ISI funding for creating taliban, ignore the proliferation of AQ Khan, and even now - paid to Pak over $10bn under G W Bush) - which is, to look at it the "evidence" from its own perspective and tell India to go sit at a negotiating table.
2) Assume that for a change, we have US support - what if the Pakis do not respond to US "pressure"? As soon as pressure built up post the Mumbai attack, transport vehicles headed for Afghanistan from the US were burnt up - underlining US dependence on Pakistan for logistics support. What is the next step if they just ignore US pressure?
3) What if China (who we are now approaching, much like we are the US) assures support, but tacitly continues to provide succour to the Pakis
Finally, some of the prescriptions to India are already in - this article by a UK professor tells its own story...
Finally, India should also reach out to ... work with the US to provide assurance to Pakistan which can undercut the paranoia of the Pakistan Army and ISI, not least with respect to India’s role in Afghanistan.
So now, we are to assuage the feelings of the ISI too.
In the meanwhile, the Israeli attack on Hamas continues, and, as the US puts it, Hamas should behave itself.
Have a great 2009
Amen
No comments:
Post a Comment