‘Weapons, money drying up’
* Intelligence official calls public, political support for Pakistan Army a ‘critical change’
LAHORE: Among Taliban groups along the border in Afghanistan, weapons are drying up, money is drying up, said Col John Spiszer of the army unit responsible for patrolling north-eastern Afghanistan along the Pakistani border.
Pakistan’s military offensive against the Taliban has slowed the flow of arms and fighters into Afghanistan, US officials have said.
According to a Los Angeles Times report, this has prompted intelligence analysts to issue new assessments of Islamabad’s ability to contain violent extremists.
Intelligence and military officials told the newspaper the revised outlook reflected a series of developments over the last few months.
“All of a sudden military operations are being imbued with a kind of legitimacy, popular support and political support they have never had before,” said a senior US intelligence official.
Major shift: The official described it as a “critical change” in a nation where the government has for years been reluctant to take on the Taliban for fear of being accused of turning the Pakistani military against its own people.
US military officials said the operations in Swat and South Waziristan were already having a measurable effect on the amount of equipment and violence spilling into Afghanistan.
“There’s a definite impact, and I think it almost can't be overstated," Spiszer said, adding Taliban elements appeared to have concluded that they could no longer afford to send as many fighters or weapons into Afghanistan.
Last year was the deadliest for the US-NATO coalition in Afghanistan, with 294 troops killed. This year, 153 more have died with 35 have been killed in June so far – the highest monthly toll of 2009.
A senior Pakistani official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the military had begun “commando-type, special forces operations” aimed at Baitullah Mehsud and was seeking to strengthen his rivals. daily times monitor
Home | National
Showing posts with label Afganistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afganistan. Show all posts
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Public Platform : India's Challenges
1.
All Editors' Selections » EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
May 19, 2009 7:03 am
Link
Several comments regarding your editorial on what India should do in regards to Pakistan. You are right, India showed remarkable restraint in not attacking Pakistan after the Mumbai attack. Especially since the Indian government believes that elements of the Pakistani army/intelligence were involved. In addition, your paper reported sources in the US intelligence organization that Pakistan's ISI was involved in the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul that killed two senior Indian officials.
Even if US aid is not used directly to build Pakistani nukes, money is fungible, and the resources freed up by the aid will be used by the Pakistani's to build nukes.
So to ask India to unilaterally stop developing additional nuclear material and to go into arms control talks with Pakistan and China is unrealistic. Do you really think that China wants to have arms control discussions? China is a major security concern for India and the US. India's military calculus is more centered on China than Pakistan. Your proposal is a non-starter.
As far as Kashmir is concerned, India would have agreed to converting the current Line of Control as the International border. That is the only pragmatic solution. There are several precedents to this. Bengal was divided between India and East Pakistan. Punjab was divided between India and West Pakistan and Pashtunistan was divided by the Durand line. Pakistani leaders have come close to accepting such a deal in the past but unfortunately have been overtaken by events in their own country before consummating the deal.
The reason that there is a strong presence of the Indian army near the Pakistani border is to prevent infiltration by terrorists from Pakistan. Often under cover fire from the Pakistani army. Every week there are reports in the Indian press of pitched battles as the Indian forces try and stop the terrorists from entering India. Do you really think that any Indian government can order its military to withdraw from the border while terrorists are entering on a regular basis.
The only way the US Af-Pak strategy will work is if the ruling elite in Pakistan (i.e. the Army ) finally realize that it is not in their best interests to keep India as the bogeyman. Until now, the demonizing of India has allowed the Pakistani army to control Pakistan. Like some one correctly said, Most countries have an army while in Pakistan the army has a country. That calculus will have to change for the Pakistani elite. India getting stronger v.vs. Pakistan will help that cause not the other way around as your editorial suggests.
— Sanjiv, San Jose, CA
Recommend Recommended by 43 Readers
2.
All Editors' Selections » EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
May 19, 2009 7:09 am
Link
It is commendable to exhort India to show regional leadership because of the stable mandate. However - Pakistan's nuclear activities have little correlation to whether India shows leadership or not. Just because its a next door neighbor does not make India a big brother to Pakistan. Pakistan's big brother has always been the United States - and her nuclear activities and stability are directly correlated to US policies and funding. In fact, many of the suggestions made in this editorial have already been pursued ad nauseum by India with different Pakistani regimes - yielding very limited results. Kashmir has had democratically elected government for quite a while now. Asking India to "resolve" the Kashmir issue without specifying what the resolution is expected in this editorial makes it a very weak argument. India has lots of other challenges besides Pakistan that could have been addressed in this editorial. Trust me - Pakistan's nuclear activities were hardly in the Indian voter's mind when they were selecting one party over another.
Both the title and contents of this editorial are misleading. But I agree that the concern is genuine.
If there's a key to changing things in Pakistan one way or the other, it lies with the United States - and that mandate was given not last week - but on November 4th, 2008. I hope we see a game changer there.
— Susmit, PA
Recommend Recommended by 30 Readers
3.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
You are not making any practical sense when you come up with these kinds of editorials. India has two main challenges..reducing poverty and keeping itself safe from the insanity around it. Arms control talks with Pakistan and China? Where's the US in all of this? India has to make Pakistan happy over Kashmir so Pakistan can do the US bidding? Stop unilaterally refining nuclear fuel when its surrounded by China and Pakistan, two of the worlds biggest proliferators?
Come one guys. Get a modicum of common sense before you come up with this kind of stuff. Its laughable.
— gr, Glenview, Il
Recommend Recommended by 44 Readers
4.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
History is testament to the fact that the United States has been on the wrong, short-sighted, self-serving path when it comes to the subcontinent. As a result, Pakistan is now a pathethic caricature of a client state. Its leaders have been reduced to barricading themselves from the extremists in their palaces whilst at home and shamelessly begging for unaccounted aid when abroad. India has taken a different path and must continue on it. Relationship with the United States is important but comes at a great cost. India must do what is in its own best interests, develop its own foreign relationships and defend its own self interests. It can not, and must not, reduce itself to being a pawn on a global chessboard as its neighbor has.
— Nuz2Me, Utah
Recommend Recommended by 26 Readers
5.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
Does India really need advice from the editors at the New York Times ? For that matter, do they need advice from anyone in the west?
From what I read, Indians still believe in hard work, free markets and capitalism. Maybe we should be taking advice from them.
— m. jones, nm
Recommend Recommended by 28 Readers
6.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
You guys mess up with every one and others have to take responsibility. You should probably stop being selfish and develop a human heart.
— Suresh, India
Recommend Recommended by 13 Readers
7.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
As long as this idea is being shoved down Pakistan's throat that India is the dominant power and Pakistan needs to submit to their leadership in the region, nothing can be resolved.
You talk about India's "constructive" role in Afghanistan. For Pakistan it is very suspicious why India being a country with no cultural or geographic affinity with Afghanistan is being allowed to have a dominant role there. On the other hand Pakistan which has a 2200 km long border with that country and a significant population which has cultural affinity with Afghanistan is being used with no regard to its own strategic interests.
I think the idea is very clear here. Pakistan is being encircled to fall in line with India's regional leadership role with the ultimate objective of countering China. The problem with the plan is that Pakistan is getting nothing in return and it is being left to India's goodwill to solve all mutual disputes. This kind of plan can easily backfire because although Pakistan is smaller than India, it is not insignificant.
I think it would behove the US to try and deal with Pakistan seperately from India in a way that takes into account Pakistan's interests also. That is the only way of dealing with this situation in fair manner.
— SAM, CA
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
8.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
How can you deal with a state based on religion which preaches hatred of other religions? Until Pakistan gives up it's religious bigotry, accepts both pluralism and democracy, there is no hope for Pakistan. India might as well ask "Am I brother's keeper?"
— V.R.Anil Kumar, Mysore, India
Recommend Recommended by 23 Readers
9.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
Pakistan is only sane to fear India. With India greatly expanding its conventional as well as nuclear capabilities, build more nuclear bombs is the only way Pakistan can balance India off. In terms of military buildup, there is no significant difference between India and Pakistan. Both are very poor countries in terms of living standard of their people, but both are spending disproportionally on arms. They created real fear and contempt toward each other, because they let pride get in the way and can not master pragmatism. India was colonized by the British for a long time, that damaged their self-confidence. India need a bold leader to turn their national psyche around, but sadly, we have not seen one in the past 50 years.
As for Pakistan, India and China to get together to negotiate arms control. This is just wishful thinking. The U.S. is directly and indirectly arming India as part of "League of Democracy" to contain China; China is arming Pakistan directly and indirectly as a way to squeeze India. Those relationship are deeply entangled. Without a grand bargain that also involve the shape of U.S.-China relations, south Asia will not see true tranquility in a long time to come.
— horsham, north carolina
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers
10.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
Asking India to negotiate with Pakistan is like asking Israel to negotiate with Iran - we don't hear that from you a lot, do we? Did United States negotiate with Iraq or Al Queda? Pakistan's nukes have only one purpose - to destroy Hindu civilization when it goes down.
— TruthPrevails, Mumbai, India
Recommend Recommended by 30 Readers
11.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
It is a fantasy to think a parliamentary-elected govt. could take a leadership role. Each member of the parliament is loyal to its special interests and.or ethnic group. Parliament-elected govts. are weak. They are the whips that the U.S. and more stable dictatorships like Iran crack.
— Lee Walker, Oakland, CA
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers
12.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
Yeah. Right. You keep pumping billions of dollars, and selling fighter jets to a crazed Muslim country with no history of democracy or even stability; that has nukes it cannot or barely control; cannot effectively control its own regions; whose army intelligence apparatus is autonomous of the government --
and then not just advocate India to show restraint -- which by the way it shows in ample measure, but to complain that it has not done enough?!!
What hutzpah!
— krish, SF Bay Area, CA
Recommend Recommended by 41 Readers
13.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
You are right - it is high time India solve the Kashmir issue by forcing Pakistan to vacate part of Kashmir it illegally grabbed in 1948. Pakistan can't control its own territory, how can it govern the land it illegally grabbed? India should take back its own country and do a better job than Pakistan.
Also to solve problem of terrorism, India should pull another Bangladesh on Pakistan. US has pampered and spoilt Pakistan for a long time and India had to bear the brunt of terrorism eminating from Pakistan. Even now US is following the same misguided policies. So let US wollow in its own ignorance and wishful thinking. By breaking Pakistan in four countries and spliting the army, the problem of terrorism will be solved once and for all.
— umok, WA
Recommend Recommended by 12 Readers
14.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
Article:"Trying to keep up to 100 bombs from extremists is hard enough"
Every reader should remember the there were thousands of nuclear bombs in the hands of extremists for eight years, starting January 20th, 2001. Recall all the talk about from that administration about "needing" to use nuclear bombs as bunker-busters in Iraq. We almost became the third nation to use nuclear weapons, as well as the first and second such nation.
— Ken Belcher, Chicago
Recommend Recommended by 9 Readers
15.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
I agree. India must tell Pakistan that it has no intention to conquer or de-stabilize Pakistan. As widely felt in India, a vibrant and secular Pakistan is good for India as well. As an ordinary Indian citizen, I would want Pakistan to prosper on all fronts and develop tolerance for people of other faiths. If it happens, India will be at peace as well. With China, India competes in economic activity. It should not have any aspiration to counter China militarily. Because if it does, it would drain its already scarce resources which it should deploy in development and welfare of its people.
India must sign NPT. One nuclear bomb or 100 would not give security enough to any nation. In a nuclear war nobody wins. She should not support any nation that has nuclear ambitions and if possible destroy all its nuclear weapons. Even if Pakistan nukes India, nuking Pakistan will be act of revenge and destruction of common man, and what would we have achieved in the end?I am not saying do not protect yourself. But nuclear weapons are no means to achieve security. Besides, there won't be any invasion at nation's level anymore. All wars currently are low intensity conflicts. So we don't need nuclear weapons.
Kashmir can be made independent if Kashmiris of all faiths are part of it and want independence. Just Muslims and not Pandits desiring so, would not enable any peace process to reach its end. Pakistan should also ask for an inclusive Kashmir that has Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus unlike herself, where ethnic cleansing has been going on for the past 60 years.
Finally, India should control its extreme right. We were always a peace loving and a spiritual nation. Let us retain that image and move towards economic prosperity.
— dram48, Bangalore, India
Recommend Recommended by 7 Readers
16.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
This is Washington's prescription for India for Washington's own good. This is the line which Obama administration would expect India to toe. Whether these policy reccomendations are in India's interests needs to be debated. Washington has been seen as a Pakistani crony in India and the perception there is that Washington has ignored all of Pakistan's past sins, co-habited with China and spawned regional terrorism. The very fact that Washington has been unable to curb Pakistan's nuclear programme is reason enough to believe that the Obama administration is failing to use its leverage in Pakistan and Afghanistan. America cannot afford an indifferent India which is also assidously being courted by the Chinese too. Ignoring India may just mean that the powershift to China may happen a lot sooner.
— James Baker, Toronto, Canada
Recommend Recommended by 21 Readers
17.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
Maybe the US should lead the way by cutting off billions of dollars of its own taxpayers dollars sent as aid to Pakistan that is ultimately used to fund terrorist training camps and purchase nuclear weapons. An American professor I know still finds the ignorance of US representatives in Pakistan about the perils of giving billions of dollars to any hand that is stretched out, unbelievable. He was called in by the USAID head in Islamabad to give a briefing about what to do with the cash pile that organization was sitting on. She had no idea what was going on in the country and was giving away funds to anyone who approached her. Maybe you should send people who have some knowledge about the ground realities there.
— Skasster, India
Recommend Recommended by 14 Readers
18.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
The possibility of good India-Pakistan relationship is far from being practical! Past experiences have shown that Pakistan government (or to be precise, Pakistani military!) can't be trusted! It is just that they thrive on propagating a sense of hatred towards their secular neighbour.So the government in India can do absolutely nothing about it!( But they won't admit it!!)
— ranjan, india
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers
19.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
While the spirit of the article is acceptable, the tone leaves a lot desired. Pakistan gets billions of dollars in military aid while India gets sermons. What kind of logic is this?
Yes Pakistani citizens and civil society is suffering and that has to change. Also India and Pakistan can live together with harmony as there are many concerns that are common to both countries. Pakistan has a huge responsibility in making this happen. How come the economy of Pakistan is in doldrums yet they find resources to expand their nuclear arsenal and for what purpose? In the name of assisting Pakistan in fighting Taliban, looks like US creating another Frankenstein's monster in South Asia. US should not absolve itself of its moral responsibility in the damage it is causing by continuously pouring money into Pakistan without demanding and ensuring accountability.
Looks like even Obama is also gradually subscribing to the myopic approach that US embraced for the last four decades vis-a-vis India and Pakistan. India needs no sympathy from US. It needs US to be fair and firm in its dealings with Pakistan and India. Looks like this is not going to happen
— Vish, UK
Recommend Recommended by 21 Readers
20.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
There is nothing India can do in Pakistan. They are a lot that grew up on poison fed daily that "Hindu" India is going to get them eventhough is Pakistan that started three wars. Pakistan can only validate its existence by proving that a multicultural multireligious India is not feasible. And there are its partners..us and China pumping billions and arming them to the teeth despite knowing that they help Al Qaeda and Taliban will be nourished.
Funny reading this editorial-- our government is contemplating billions more aid, and at the same time asking that India refrain! Why? So that the "freedom fighters" won't send another plane to New York? Are Indian lives cheap?
Throughout history, we seem to have sided with despots and dictators. When will we change? If you believe democracy is a good thing, then there are over a billion people that voted peacefully just now. How about a security council seat for India that is a 6th of humanity?
How about partnering with India in fixing up Pakistan and Afghanistan? America had always dared to take bold steps throughout history when compelled with moral problems. Let us get it done!
— Veetri, Phoenix, AZ
Recommend Recommended by 25 Readers
21.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
India's reelection of the government of Manmohan Singh, one of the world's most capable and prudent heads of government, is heartening. The fact that he is only the second Indian leader since independence to be reelected after serving a full term suggests that India may indeed be entering a phase of stable growth. That should appeal to those investing in the subcontinent’s future, and comfort those, like the United States, who are increasingly reliant on it as an ally. Additionally, the success of this exercise in democracy at such a large scale also resonates in countries like China, who have resolutely contended that such a system cannot work in nations of such complexity and scope.
To continue the discussion, please visit www.twitter.com/halwoods
— Hal Woods, Chicago, IL
Recommend Recommended by 18 Readers
22.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
It is past time the US understood its predicament in Pakistan. You can neither stop nor continue feeding the beast that controls Pakistan - its army. The former risks implosion of the country and the latter explosions worldwide. Sorry, India cannot help you out of this mess. You cannot lay the blame for Pakistan buying nukes out of US aid for development or fighting terrorism on India. Pakistan does not need more nukes to avoid the threat of India. Pakistani army needs them to scare the US into parting with its money, which will be used to perpetuate the feudal stranglehold over ordinary Pakistanis. Honestly, does anyone still believe that India seeks any of the extremist-ridden Pakistani territory?
Please learn not to mollycoddle dictatorships for short term gains next time you are revisiting policy. Tutorial one: Start with Saudi Arabia which I heard builds most Madrassas in Pakistan.
— SK, NY
Recommend Recommended by 28 Readers
23.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
Expecting India to play a role in stabilizing Pakistan in any manner, let alone through progress on Kashmir seems rather naive! Progress towards any solution on Kashmir is likely to cause serious internal problems for even a stable government in Pakistan, let alone the current lame-duck administration of Mr. Zardari. It's also important to understand that with most of India's neighbors, anti-India rhetoric and posturing is de rigeur for everybody in the political process - and more so in the case of Pakistan. Any attempt by India to get involved in "stabilizing" Pakistan would probably prove counter productive.
On a related note, the US Administration and policy wonks need to get real about the fundamental nature of the Pakistani State. 60 years of an Islamist foundational doctrine, virulent anti-Indianism, and 30 years of (american-sponsored) jihadism have given these ideologies deep roots in every facet of the state, and the transition that is being expected of them today requires that these very roots be torn from the ground.
The recent confrontation with the Taliban in Swat constitutes the first credible signal from the State of its willingness to transform itself and the US needs to hold the Pak Govt to this course.
The Indian Govt would be happy to move on Kashmir (as back channel negotiations on the subject with Musharraf were testament to), but the Pakistanis must necessarily abnegate recourse to terrorist proxies as instruments of state policy, and extradite known terrorist offenders currently claiming sanctuary there under the patronage of the intelligence services, before any Indian govt could reasonably reengage in a dialogue.
— Sreeram, Bangalore
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
24.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
This article shows naivete in discussing the region.
1. "Demand assurances" from pakistan? Who from, precisely? The President, who controls nothing? Or the Army, which took $10 Billion in the past to further their own interests? "Assurances" from any Pakistani institution means nothing.
2. "Persuade" Burma's regime? Are you aware that China and India are in competition for influence there, and that China is far ahead? That most of North Eastern Burma is full of chinese, and chinese currency is freely used there? India's interest in Burma are based on realpolitik vs China not on what the rest of the world wants vis a vis democracy etc.
— jetlagged, Northern Virginia
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers
25.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
Oh dear. This editorial needs a translator well-versed in imperialese. I'll give some of it a go.
"[A]rguably the most dangerous country on earth" means "Oops, we gave billions to a country to help it oppress its own people, and now this seems to no longer work it turns out they also spent much of it on nukes instead of bombing villages. Whatever shall we do? Note: get out of other peoples' business is not a valid answer."
"Resolving issues over Kashmir" means "India and Pakistan should get their act together - but whatever you do, don't take the wishes of the people of Kashmir into account. That would set a bad precedent."
"India must assume its responsibilities" means "We need a local policeman for the Empire. India has just been volunteered."
— Christian Haesemeyer, Los Angeles
26.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
India should not deal with a state which has shown little regard to its citizen's basic rights to education and social empowerment. Washington's advice on engaging the leader of Pakistan should be voiced to the country which remains its strongest ally both economically and in terms of providing military hardware - China.
— Nitin, Wellington
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers
27.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
Kashmir problem will be solved in no time if the US stops giving military aid to Pakistan. Pakistani governments of both civilian and military varieties are experts in fooling US into thinking that Pakistan is a US ally in whatever the US wants to accomplish in the region - a base fro US operations against USSR, a conduit for arms to fight Soviets or holding the line against Al Queda. Whatever the US policy, the army ends up with more weapons and gets enriched and to maintain it's position the army tells the Pakistani population that India is the enemy.
— Lordknow, Palo Alo, CA
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers
28.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
The editorial indeed makes some valid points about India’s rightful regional role, yet it overlooks a major barrier. And that is the Pakistan’s army and ISI who benefits immensely by having India as a perpetual enemy. Their constant, and often unjustified, blackmail of the Pakistan’s populace by creating the specter of India’s unbridled aggression gives them justification for fleecing the Pakistan’s national budget. Thus any overtures by India, except for delivering the Kashmir on a silver plater, will not placate the two institutions that have held their own country, and now the world, hostage. And even after such an overture, given their record there is no guarantee that the Pakistan army and ISI will not find any reason not to continue the enmity. In fact, it may embolden these two institutions, just as making concessions to Taliban in Swat valley gave the Taliban encouragement to reach for more. Moreover, for the last 20 years, the Pakistan army and ISI have come to believe that the western nations and the US need the Pakistan army badly enough to let them extract their pound of flesh and still get away with much more. Amassing nuclear weapons while receiving billions of dollars from the US to allegedly fight a war on terror is an excellent example Pakistan army’s strategy. Twisting India’s arms to make concessions is no guarantee that the game that is being played for the last 20 years will change. Negotiating arms treaty to include China is a good suggestions but it should be separated from the India’s relations with Pakistan which should be strictly a bilateral issues. Mixing the two, although they are somewhat interrelated, is not advisable. Suggestion on broader talks on environment and water with Pakistan is indeed a good one since it directly helps the people of Pakistan, and an issue that India should take seriously.
— PK, Sacremento, CA
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
29.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
It is preposterous to suggest that India should initiate arms control when Pakistan is bulking up on fighter jets and nukes, ostensibly to fight the Taliban. The government should first get down to the task of taking care of the development of the country, driving growth and combating terrorism (both within and Pakistan sponsored)
— Jeejo, Bangalore
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
30.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
the indian congress's victory should enhance india's image in the world besides bringing stability to indian government for the next five years. most election observers expected a fragile coalition to emerge from the election. the thumping victory for prime minister manmohan singh has given him a second term, an event that has only occured once before in india's post-colonial history when jawaharlal nehru was re-elected.manmohan singh's government has promoted programs for the low income sections of indian society.the manmohan singh led congress government has actively tried to improve relations with the united states. although the new york times opposed the us-india nuclear deal, it was important for india to sign the deal and maintain it's credibility with the bush administration. to manmohan singh's credit, he was firm and determined and saw the deal through,even though his communist allies withdrew their support and his government almost collapsed. he is also viewed as a person of integrity.india's growth has slowed due to the global economic downturn.manmohan singh's past background and experience as an economist should serve india well.
india's voters ignored the talibanization in neighboring pakistan, and communal and divisive politics in electing a party that defends the country's secular values.
india is one of the top troop contributers to UN peacekeeping operations. kashmir's accession to india in '47 was legal and it's constitution is closely aligned with india's after the last 60 years.unlike pakistan which is an islamic country, indias people view themselves as a secular society and kashmir,a state that has both hindus and muslims, as an integral part of their country. india is one of the largest troop contributers to un peacekeepingg efforts and has partnered with the us in the efforts to rebuild afghanistan.
india faces daunting challenges including a large budget deficit and a need to modernize it's infrastructure.
the indian congress's win has increased hopes that economic reform will continue in india.it's communist allies opposed these reformsin recent years.however, india will have to proceed cautiously in opening it's market in view of the global downturn.
pakistan's nuclear and arms build up,and the mumbai attack last november are reminders of india's external challenges.
— amber, us
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers
31.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
It is true that India has to assume greater role in Asian Subcontinent. But when it comes to Pakistan, we can not ignore the fact that Kashmir is not THE main problem, as it was impressed in the Editorial. Rather securing Pakistani state from Taliban and Separatists is the main issue. When it is not clear who exercises what influence in which part of the total Pakistani set-up (Government, Legislature, Armed forces, Judiciary and Media)with whom should India engage regarding Kashmir? What assurances can be given from the negotiating party that the rest of the stake holders agree? Please, let us all give Pakistani state time to set house in-order and then bring upon them additional burdens.
One at a time - Brick by Brick, a long lasting solution.
— Srikumar, Mumbai
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
32.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
The tone of the editorial is rather condescending. As the saying goes, for a person with a hammer the whole world seems like a nail. Not a single line in this editorial is really about India but more about protecting American's interests and ambitions - for example "...use its considerable trade clout with Iran, Sudan and Myanmar to curb Tehran’s nuclear program, end the genocide in Darfur and press Myanmar’s junta to expand human rights". Can you please add preparing a venti tazo chai-latte with soy milk for President Obama to the list?
I am not here to suggest that none of this is important but please we have enough problems on our own. We are not sure how the recession would play out in India, what to do with farmer suicides, how to have an inclusive growth, what to do with the Maoist problem and growing terrorist strikes and ways to protect the secular fabric of our nation. The people of India voted on these issues more than anything and I am really glad that the people of India gave an almost decisive mandate for a sincere and hardworking man in Dr. Manmohan Singh. India should engage with the world on its terms and conditions and when it chooses and not at the bidding of anyone.
— KM, India
Recommend Recommended by 13 Readers
33.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
'India's challenges' reads a lot like 'What the US would like India to do'. How about the real challenges: economic reform and lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, the environment and securing natural resources for future growth? Yes, Pakistan is important, but India seems to have limited ability to affect outcomes in its disintegrating neighbour.
— shaloub, Toronto
Recommend Recommended by 10 Readers
34.
May 19, 2009 9:00 am
Link
Well, I suppose Manmohan Singh and the South Block mandarins in New Delhi should profusely thank the NYT editorial for their generous sermon. What better way could one celebrate the successful conclusion of the largest democratic exercise in human history that led to significant upsets (e.g., the routing of the Communists in Bengal).
Note the number of times "should" and "must" are used. Such patronizing editorials, unfortunately, confirm that the reputation of the arrogant American is often well-earned.
Such a patronizing laundry list of action items would be laughable but is instead disturbing coming from a prestigious newspaper. Do we Americans have a better grasp of what's good for India than the Indians themselves?
It's interesting that NYT now considers Pakistani to be "arguably the most dangerous country on earth". India had made this point over a decade ago. Unfortunately, it took another 8 years after 9/11 for this thought to dawn to our mainstream media.
Let me offer an alternative view. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a stable Pakistan is in India's interest. A stable Pakistan is one ruled by the Army, with arms purchases funded by our taxpayer money, and planning and executing mischief against India.
The dismantling of the Pakistani nation state into smaller states is in the best interest of India in particular and for the stability of South Asia in general. I would assume that India would do her best to exercise influence in Afghanistan to ensure that Pakistani nuclear weapons would not be stationed there out of range of Indian Air Force (the "strategic depth" sought by the Pakistani Army). If the Indian administration has any strategy, it would be to assiduously work towards breaking up Pakistan.
I suppose it would take another decade for NYT to come to a similar conclusion that a feudal state devoid of a national identity cannot be propped up by foreign handouts and a common dislike of India.
Till then we will listen to the sermons over morning coffee :)
— Ajit, Sunnyvale, CA
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers
35.
May 19, 2009 9:00 am
Link
and Srilanka...India in spite of fatal losses (e.g., Rajiv Gandhi) has failed to address Tamils concern in Sri Lanka for over 25 yrs now. Its initiative for peace keeping forces and to aid Sril Lankan military would not have been necessary had India has supported the cause of Tamils in Srilanka. In these post-mortem efforts, Indian government stance has also earned the wrath of its own people (in TamilNadu).
— Balaji Raman, Singapore
All Editors' Selections » EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
May 19, 2009 7:03 am
Link
Several comments regarding your editorial on what India should do in regards to Pakistan. You are right, India showed remarkable restraint in not attacking Pakistan after the Mumbai attack. Especially since the Indian government believes that elements of the Pakistani army/intelligence were involved. In addition, your paper reported sources in the US intelligence organization that Pakistan's ISI was involved in the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul that killed two senior Indian officials.
Even if US aid is not used directly to build Pakistani nukes, money is fungible, and the resources freed up by the aid will be used by the Pakistani's to build nukes.
So to ask India to unilaterally stop developing additional nuclear material and to go into arms control talks with Pakistan and China is unrealistic. Do you really think that China wants to have arms control discussions? China is a major security concern for India and the US. India's military calculus is more centered on China than Pakistan. Your proposal is a non-starter.
As far as Kashmir is concerned, India would have agreed to converting the current Line of Control as the International border. That is the only pragmatic solution. There are several precedents to this. Bengal was divided between India and East Pakistan. Punjab was divided between India and West Pakistan and Pashtunistan was divided by the Durand line. Pakistani leaders have come close to accepting such a deal in the past but unfortunately have been overtaken by events in their own country before consummating the deal.
The reason that there is a strong presence of the Indian army near the Pakistani border is to prevent infiltration by terrorists from Pakistan. Often under cover fire from the Pakistani army. Every week there are reports in the Indian press of pitched battles as the Indian forces try and stop the terrorists from entering India. Do you really think that any Indian government can order its military to withdraw from the border while terrorists are entering on a regular basis.
The only way the US Af-Pak strategy will work is if the ruling elite in Pakistan (i.e. the Army ) finally realize that it is not in their best interests to keep India as the bogeyman. Until now, the demonizing of India has allowed the Pakistani army to control Pakistan. Like some one correctly said, Most countries have an army while in Pakistan the army has a country. That calculus will have to change for the Pakistani elite. India getting stronger v.vs. Pakistan will help that cause not the other way around as your editorial suggests.
— Sanjiv, San Jose, CA
Recommend Recommended by 43 Readers
2.
All Editors' Selections » EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
May 19, 2009 7:09 am
Link
It is commendable to exhort India to show regional leadership because of the stable mandate. However - Pakistan's nuclear activities have little correlation to whether India shows leadership or not. Just because its a next door neighbor does not make India a big brother to Pakistan. Pakistan's big brother has always been the United States - and her nuclear activities and stability are directly correlated to US policies and funding. In fact, many of the suggestions made in this editorial have already been pursued ad nauseum by India with different Pakistani regimes - yielding very limited results. Kashmir has had democratically elected government for quite a while now. Asking India to "resolve" the Kashmir issue without specifying what the resolution is expected in this editorial makes it a very weak argument. India has lots of other challenges besides Pakistan that could have been addressed in this editorial. Trust me - Pakistan's nuclear activities were hardly in the Indian voter's mind when they were selecting one party over another.
Both the title and contents of this editorial are misleading. But I agree that the concern is genuine.
If there's a key to changing things in Pakistan one way or the other, it lies with the United States - and that mandate was given not last week - but on November 4th, 2008. I hope we see a game changer there.
— Susmit, PA
Recommend Recommended by 30 Readers
3.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
You are not making any practical sense when you come up with these kinds of editorials. India has two main challenges..reducing poverty and keeping itself safe from the insanity around it. Arms control talks with Pakistan and China? Where's the US in all of this? India has to make Pakistan happy over Kashmir so Pakistan can do the US bidding? Stop unilaterally refining nuclear fuel when its surrounded by China and Pakistan, two of the worlds biggest proliferators?
Come one guys. Get a modicum of common sense before you come up with this kind of stuff. Its laughable.
— gr, Glenview, Il
Recommend Recommended by 44 Readers
4.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
History is testament to the fact that the United States has been on the wrong, short-sighted, self-serving path when it comes to the subcontinent. As a result, Pakistan is now a pathethic caricature of a client state. Its leaders have been reduced to barricading themselves from the extremists in their palaces whilst at home and shamelessly begging for unaccounted aid when abroad. India has taken a different path and must continue on it. Relationship with the United States is important but comes at a great cost. India must do what is in its own best interests, develop its own foreign relationships and defend its own self interests. It can not, and must not, reduce itself to being a pawn on a global chessboard as its neighbor has.
— Nuz2Me, Utah
Recommend Recommended by 26 Readers
5.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
Does India really need advice from the editors at the New York Times ? For that matter, do they need advice from anyone in the west?
From what I read, Indians still believe in hard work, free markets and capitalism. Maybe we should be taking advice from them.
— m. jones, nm
Recommend Recommended by 28 Readers
6.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
You guys mess up with every one and others have to take responsibility. You should probably stop being selfish and develop a human heart.
— Suresh, India
Recommend Recommended by 13 Readers
7.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
As long as this idea is being shoved down Pakistan's throat that India is the dominant power and Pakistan needs to submit to their leadership in the region, nothing can be resolved.
You talk about India's "constructive" role in Afghanistan. For Pakistan it is very suspicious why India being a country with no cultural or geographic affinity with Afghanistan is being allowed to have a dominant role there. On the other hand Pakistan which has a 2200 km long border with that country and a significant population which has cultural affinity with Afghanistan is being used with no regard to its own strategic interests.
I think the idea is very clear here. Pakistan is being encircled to fall in line with India's regional leadership role with the ultimate objective of countering China. The problem with the plan is that Pakistan is getting nothing in return and it is being left to India's goodwill to solve all mutual disputes. This kind of plan can easily backfire because although Pakistan is smaller than India, it is not insignificant.
I think it would behove the US to try and deal with Pakistan seperately from India in a way that takes into account Pakistan's interests also. That is the only way of dealing with this situation in fair manner.
— SAM, CA
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
8.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
How can you deal with a state based on religion which preaches hatred of other religions? Until Pakistan gives up it's religious bigotry, accepts both pluralism and democracy, there is no hope for Pakistan. India might as well ask "Am I brother's keeper?"
— V.R.Anil Kumar, Mysore, India
Recommend Recommended by 23 Readers
9.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
Pakistan is only sane to fear India. With India greatly expanding its conventional as well as nuclear capabilities, build more nuclear bombs is the only way Pakistan can balance India off. In terms of military buildup, there is no significant difference between India and Pakistan. Both are very poor countries in terms of living standard of their people, but both are spending disproportionally on arms. They created real fear and contempt toward each other, because they let pride get in the way and can not master pragmatism. India was colonized by the British for a long time, that damaged their self-confidence. India need a bold leader to turn their national psyche around, but sadly, we have not seen one in the past 50 years.
As for Pakistan, India and China to get together to negotiate arms control. This is just wishful thinking. The U.S. is directly and indirectly arming India as part of "League of Democracy" to contain China; China is arming Pakistan directly and indirectly as a way to squeeze India. Those relationship are deeply entangled. Without a grand bargain that also involve the shape of U.S.-China relations, south Asia will not see true tranquility in a long time to come.
— horsham, north carolina
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers
10.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
Asking India to negotiate with Pakistan is like asking Israel to negotiate with Iran - we don't hear that from you a lot, do we? Did United States negotiate with Iraq or Al Queda? Pakistan's nukes have only one purpose - to destroy Hindu civilization when it goes down.
— TruthPrevails, Mumbai, India
Recommend Recommended by 30 Readers
11.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
It is a fantasy to think a parliamentary-elected govt. could take a leadership role. Each member of the parliament is loyal to its special interests and.or ethnic group. Parliament-elected govts. are weak. They are the whips that the U.S. and more stable dictatorships like Iran crack.
— Lee Walker, Oakland, CA
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers
12.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
Yeah. Right. You keep pumping billions of dollars, and selling fighter jets to a crazed Muslim country with no history of democracy or even stability; that has nukes it cannot or barely control; cannot effectively control its own regions; whose army intelligence apparatus is autonomous of the government --
and then not just advocate India to show restraint -- which by the way it shows in ample measure, but to complain that it has not done enough?!!
What hutzpah!
— krish, SF Bay Area, CA
Recommend Recommended by 41 Readers
13.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
You are right - it is high time India solve the Kashmir issue by forcing Pakistan to vacate part of Kashmir it illegally grabbed in 1948. Pakistan can't control its own territory, how can it govern the land it illegally grabbed? India should take back its own country and do a better job than Pakistan.
Also to solve problem of terrorism, India should pull another Bangladesh on Pakistan. US has pampered and spoilt Pakistan for a long time and India had to bear the brunt of terrorism eminating from Pakistan. Even now US is following the same misguided policies. So let US wollow in its own ignorance and wishful thinking. By breaking Pakistan in four countries and spliting the army, the problem of terrorism will be solved once and for all.
— umok, WA
Recommend Recommended by 12 Readers
14.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
Article:"Trying to keep up to 100 bombs from extremists is hard enough"
Every reader should remember the there were thousands of nuclear bombs in the hands of extremists for eight years, starting January 20th, 2001. Recall all the talk about from that administration about "needing" to use nuclear bombs as bunker-busters in Iraq. We almost became the third nation to use nuclear weapons, as well as the first and second such nation.
— Ken Belcher, Chicago
Recommend Recommended by 9 Readers
15.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
I agree. India must tell Pakistan that it has no intention to conquer or de-stabilize Pakistan. As widely felt in India, a vibrant and secular Pakistan is good for India as well. As an ordinary Indian citizen, I would want Pakistan to prosper on all fronts and develop tolerance for people of other faiths. If it happens, India will be at peace as well. With China, India competes in economic activity. It should not have any aspiration to counter China militarily. Because if it does, it would drain its already scarce resources which it should deploy in development and welfare of its people.
India must sign NPT. One nuclear bomb or 100 would not give security enough to any nation. In a nuclear war nobody wins. She should not support any nation that has nuclear ambitions and if possible destroy all its nuclear weapons. Even if Pakistan nukes India, nuking Pakistan will be act of revenge and destruction of common man, and what would we have achieved in the end?I am not saying do not protect yourself. But nuclear weapons are no means to achieve security. Besides, there won't be any invasion at nation's level anymore. All wars currently are low intensity conflicts. So we don't need nuclear weapons.
Kashmir can be made independent if Kashmiris of all faiths are part of it and want independence. Just Muslims and not Pandits desiring so, would not enable any peace process to reach its end. Pakistan should also ask for an inclusive Kashmir that has Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus unlike herself, where ethnic cleansing has been going on for the past 60 years.
Finally, India should control its extreme right. We were always a peace loving and a spiritual nation. Let us retain that image and move towards economic prosperity.
— dram48, Bangalore, India
Recommend Recommended by 7 Readers
16.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
This is Washington's prescription for India for Washington's own good. This is the line which Obama administration would expect India to toe. Whether these policy reccomendations are in India's interests needs to be debated. Washington has been seen as a Pakistani crony in India and the perception there is that Washington has ignored all of Pakistan's past sins, co-habited with China and spawned regional terrorism. The very fact that Washington has been unable to curb Pakistan's nuclear programme is reason enough to believe that the Obama administration is failing to use its leverage in Pakistan and Afghanistan. America cannot afford an indifferent India which is also assidously being courted by the Chinese too. Ignoring India may just mean that the powershift to China may happen a lot sooner.
— James Baker, Toronto, Canada
Recommend Recommended by 21 Readers
17.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
Maybe the US should lead the way by cutting off billions of dollars of its own taxpayers dollars sent as aid to Pakistan that is ultimately used to fund terrorist training camps and purchase nuclear weapons. An American professor I know still finds the ignorance of US representatives in Pakistan about the perils of giving billions of dollars to any hand that is stretched out, unbelievable. He was called in by the USAID head in Islamabad to give a briefing about what to do with the cash pile that organization was sitting on. She had no idea what was going on in the country and was giving away funds to anyone who approached her. Maybe you should send people who have some knowledge about the ground realities there.
— Skasster, India
Recommend Recommended by 14 Readers
18.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
The possibility of good India-Pakistan relationship is far from being practical! Past experiences have shown that Pakistan government (or to be precise, Pakistani military!) can't be trusted! It is just that they thrive on propagating a sense of hatred towards their secular neighbour.So the government in India can do absolutely nothing about it!( But they won't admit it!!)
— ranjan, india
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers
19.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
While the spirit of the article is acceptable, the tone leaves a lot desired. Pakistan gets billions of dollars in military aid while India gets sermons. What kind of logic is this?
Yes Pakistani citizens and civil society is suffering and that has to change. Also India and Pakistan can live together with harmony as there are many concerns that are common to both countries. Pakistan has a huge responsibility in making this happen. How come the economy of Pakistan is in doldrums yet they find resources to expand their nuclear arsenal and for what purpose? In the name of assisting Pakistan in fighting Taliban, looks like US creating another Frankenstein's monster in South Asia. US should not absolve itself of its moral responsibility in the damage it is causing by continuously pouring money into Pakistan without demanding and ensuring accountability.
Looks like even Obama is also gradually subscribing to the myopic approach that US embraced for the last four decades vis-a-vis India and Pakistan. India needs no sympathy from US. It needs US to be fair and firm in its dealings with Pakistan and India. Looks like this is not going to happen
— Vish, UK
Recommend Recommended by 21 Readers
20.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
There is nothing India can do in Pakistan. They are a lot that grew up on poison fed daily that "Hindu" India is going to get them eventhough is Pakistan that started three wars. Pakistan can only validate its existence by proving that a multicultural multireligious India is not feasible. And there are its partners..us and China pumping billions and arming them to the teeth despite knowing that they help Al Qaeda and Taliban will be nourished.
Funny reading this editorial-- our government is contemplating billions more aid, and at the same time asking that India refrain! Why? So that the "freedom fighters" won't send another plane to New York? Are Indian lives cheap?
Throughout history, we seem to have sided with despots and dictators. When will we change? If you believe democracy is a good thing, then there are over a billion people that voted peacefully just now. How about a security council seat for India that is a 6th of humanity?
How about partnering with India in fixing up Pakistan and Afghanistan? America had always dared to take bold steps throughout history when compelled with moral problems. Let us get it done!
— Veetri, Phoenix, AZ
Recommend Recommended by 25 Readers
21.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
India's reelection of the government of Manmohan Singh, one of the world's most capable and prudent heads of government, is heartening. The fact that he is only the second Indian leader since independence to be reelected after serving a full term suggests that India may indeed be entering a phase of stable growth. That should appeal to those investing in the subcontinent’s future, and comfort those, like the United States, who are increasingly reliant on it as an ally. Additionally, the success of this exercise in democracy at such a large scale also resonates in countries like China, who have resolutely contended that such a system cannot work in nations of such complexity and scope.
To continue the discussion, please visit www.twitter.com/halwoods
— Hal Woods, Chicago, IL
Recommend Recommended by 18 Readers
22.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Link
It is past time the US understood its predicament in Pakistan. You can neither stop nor continue feeding the beast that controls Pakistan - its army. The former risks implosion of the country and the latter explosions worldwide. Sorry, India cannot help you out of this mess. You cannot lay the blame for Pakistan buying nukes out of US aid for development or fighting terrorism on India. Pakistan does not need more nukes to avoid the threat of India. Pakistani army needs them to scare the US into parting with its money, which will be used to perpetuate the feudal stranglehold over ordinary Pakistanis. Honestly, does anyone still believe that India seeks any of the extremist-ridden Pakistani territory?
Please learn not to mollycoddle dictatorships for short term gains next time you are revisiting policy. Tutorial one: Start with Saudi Arabia which I heard builds most Madrassas in Pakistan.
— SK, NY
Recommend Recommended by 28 Readers
23.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
Expecting India to play a role in stabilizing Pakistan in any manner, let alone through progress on Kashmir seems rather naive! Progress towards any solution on Kashmir is likely to cause serious internal problems for even a stable government in Pakistan, let alone the current lame-duck administration of Mr. Zardari. It's also important to understand that with most of India's neighbors, anti-India rhetoric and posturing is de rigeur for everybody in the political process - and more so in the case of Pakistan. Any attempt by India to get involved in "stabilizing" Pakistan would probably prove counter productive.
On a related note, the US Administration and policy wonks need to get real about the fundamental nature of the Pakistani State. 60 years of an Islamist foundational doctrine, virulent anti-Indianism, and 30 years of (american-sponsored) jihadism have given these ideologies deep roots in every facet of the state, and the transition that is being expected of them today requires that these very roots be torn from the ground.
The recent confrontation with the Taliban in Swat constitutes the first credible signal from the State of its willingness to transform itself and the US needs to hold the Pak Govt to this course.
The Indian Govt would be happy to move on Kashmir (as back channel negotiations on the subject with Musharraf were testament to), but the Pakistanis must necessarily abnegate recourse to terrorist proxies as instruments of state policy, and extradite known terrorist offenders currently claiming sanctuary there under the patronage of the intelligence services, before any Indian govt could reasonably reengage in a dialogue.
— Sreeram, Bangalore
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
24.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
This article shows naivete in discussing the region.
1. "Demand assurances" from pakistan? Who from, precisely? The President, who controls nothing? Or the Army, which took $10 Billion in the past to further their own interests? "Assurances" from any Pakistani institution means nothing.
2. "Persuade" Burma's regime? Are you aware that China and India are in competition for influence there, and that China is far ahead? That most of North Eastern Burma is full of chinese, and chinese currency is freely used there? India's interest in Burma are based on realpolitik vs China not on what the rest of the world wants vis a vis democracy etc.
— jetlagged, Northern Virginia
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers
25.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
Oh dear. This editorial needs a translator well-versed in imperialese. I'll give some of it a go.
"[A]rguably the most dangerous country on earth" means "Oops, we gave billions to a country to help it oppress its own people, and now this seems to no longer work it turns out they also spent much of it on nukes instead of bombing villages. Whatever shall we do? Note: get out of other peoples' business is not a valid answer."
"Resolving issues over Kashmir" means "India and Pakistan should get their act together - but whatever you do, don't take the wishes of the people of Kashmir into account. That would set a bad precedent."
"India must assume its responsibilities" means "We need a local policeman for the Empire. India has just been volunteered."
— Christian Haesemeyer, Los Angeles
26.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
India should not deal with a state which has shown little regard to its citizen's basic rights to education and social empowerment. Washington's advice on engaging the leader of Pakistan should be voiced to the country which remains its strongest ally both economically and in terms of providing military hardware - China.
— Nitin, Wellington
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers
27.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
Kashmir problem will be solved in no time if the US stops giving military aid to Pakistan. Pakistani governments of both civilian and military varieties are experts in fooling US into thinking that Pakistan is a US ally in whatever the US wants to accomplish in the region - a base fro US operations against USSR, a conduit for arms to fight Soviets or holding the line against Al Queda. Whatever the US policy, the army ends up with more weapons and gets enriched and to maintain it's position the army tells the Pakistani population that India is the enemy.
— Lordknow, Palo Alo, CA
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers
28.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
The editorial indeed makes some valid points about India’s rightful regional role, yet it overlooks a major barrier. And that is the Pakistan’s army and ISI who benefits immensely by having India as a perpetual enemy. Their constant, and often unjustified, blackmail of the Pakistan’s populace by creating the specter of India’s unbridled aggression gives them justification for fleecing the Pakistan’s national budget. Thus any overtures by India, except for delivering the Kashmir on a silver plater, will not placate the two institutions that have held their own country, and now the world, hostage. And even after such an overture, given their record there is no guarantee that the Pakistan army and ISI will not find any reason not to continue the enmity. In fact, it may embolden these two institutions, just as making concessions to Taliban in Swat valley gave the Taliban encouragement to reach for more. Moreover, for the last 20 years, the Pakistan army and ISI have come to believe that the western nations and the US need the Pakistan army badly enough to let them extract their pound of flesh and still get away with much more. Amassing nuclear weapons while receiving billions of dollars from the US to allegedly fight a war on terror is an excellent example Pakistan army’s strategy. Twisting India’s arms to make concessions is no guarantee that the game that is being played for the last 20 years will change. Negotiating arms treaty to include China is a good suggestions but it should be separated from the India’s relations with Pakistan which should be strictly a bilateral issues. Mixing the two, although they are somewhat interrelated, is not advisable. Suggestion on broader talks on environment and water with Pakistan is indeed a good one since it directly helps the people of Pakistan, and an issue that India should take seriously.
— PK, Sacremento, CA
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
29.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
It is preposterous to suggest that India should initiate arms control when Pakistan is bulking up on fighter jets and nukes, ostensibly to fight the Taliban. The government should first get down to the task of taking care of the development of the country, driving growth and combating terrorism (both within and Pakistan sponsored)
— Jeejo, Bangalore
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
30.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
the indian congress's victory should enhance india's image in the world besides bringing stability to indian government for the next five years. most election observers expected a fragile coalition to emerge from the election. the thumping victory for prime minister manmohan singh has given him a second term, an event that has only occured once before in india's post-colonial history when jawaharlal nehru was re-elected.manmohan singh's government has promoted programs for the low income sections of indian society.the manmohan singh led congress government has actively tried to improve relations with the united states. although the new york times opposed the us-india nuclear deal, it was important for india to sign the deal and maintain it's credibility with the bush administration. to manmohan singh's credit, he was firm and determined and saw the deal through,even though his communist allies withdrew their support and his government almost collapsed. he is also viewed as a person of integrity.india's growth has slowed due to the global economic downturn.manmohan singh's past background and experience as an economist should serve india well.
india's voters ignored the talibanization in neighboring pakistan, and communal and divisive politics in electing a party that defends the country's secular values.
india is one of the top troop contributers to UN peacekeeping operations. kashmir's accession to india in '47 was legal and it's constitution is closely aligned with india's after the last 60 years.unlike pakistan which is an islamic country, indias people view themselves as a secular society and kashmir,a state that has both hindus and muslims, as an integral part of their country. india is one of the largest troop contributers to un peacekeepingg efforts and has partnered with the us in the efforts to rebuild afghanistan.
india faces daunting challenges including a large budget deficit and a need to modernize it's infrastructure.
the indian congress's win has increased hopes that economic reform will continue in india.it's communist allies opposed these reformsin recent years.however, india will have to proceed cautiously in opening it's market in view of the global downturn.
pakistan's nuclear and arms build up,and the mumbai attack last november are reminders of india's external challenges.
— amber, us
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers
31.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
It is true that India has to assume greater role in Asian Subcontinent. But when it comes to Pakistan, we can not ignore the fact that Kashmir is not THE main problem, as it was impressed in the Editorial. Rather securing Pakistani state from Taliban and Separatists is the main issue. When it is not clear who exercises what influence in which part of the total Pakistani set-up (Government, Legislature, Armed forces, Judiciary and Media)with whom should India engage regarding Kashmir? What assurances can be given from the negotiating party that the rest of the stake holders agree? Please, let us all give Pakistani state time to set house in-order and then bring upon them additional burdens.
One at a time - Brick by Brick, a long lasting solution.
— Srikumar, Mumbai
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
32.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
The tone of the editorial is rather condescending. As the saying goes, for a person with a hammer the whole world seems like a nail. Not a single line in this editorial is really about India but more about protecting American's interests and ambitions - for example "...use its considerable trade clout with Iran, Sudan and Myanmar to curb Tehran’s nuclear program, end the genocide in Darfur and press Myanmar’s junta to expand human rights". Can you please add preparing a venti tazo chai-latte with soy milk for President Obama to the list?
I am not here to suggest that none of this is important but please we have enough problems on our own. We are not sure how the recession would play out in India, what to do with farmer suicides, how to have an inclusive growth, what to do with the Maoist problem and growing terrorist strikes and ways to protect the secular fabric of our nation. The people of India voted on these issues more than anything and I am really glad that the people of India gave an almost decisive mandate for a sincere and hardworking man in Dr. Manmohan Singh. India should engage with the world on its terms and conditions and when it chooses and not at the bidding of anyone.
— KM, India
Recommend Recommended by 13 Readers
33.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Link
'India's challenges' reads a lot like 'What the US would like India to do'. How about the real challenges: economic reform and lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, the environment and securing natural resources for future growth? Yes, Pakistan is important, but India seems to have limited ability to affect outcomes in its disintegrating neighbour.
— shaloub, Toronto
Recommend Recommended by 10 Readers
34.
May 19, 2009 9:00 am
Link
Well, I suppose Manmohan Singh and the South Block mandarins in New Delhi should profusely thank the NYT editorial for their generous sermon. What better way could one celebrate the successful conclusion of the largest democratic exercise in human history that led to significant upsets (e.g., the routing of the Communists in Bengal).
Note the number of times "should" and "must" are used. Such patronizing editorials, unfortunately, confirm that the reputation of the arrogant American is often well-earned.
Such a patronizing laundry list of action items would be laughable but is instead disturbing coming from a prestigious newspaper. Do we Americans have a better grasp of what's good for India than the Indians themselves?
It's interesting that NYT now considers Pakistani to be "arguably the most dangerous country on earth". India had made this point over a decade ago. Unfortunately, it took another 8 years after 9/11 for this thought to dawn to our mainstream media.
Let me offer an alternative view. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a stable Pakistan is in India's interest. A stable Pakistan is one ruled by the Army, with arms purchases funded by our taxpayer money, and planning and executing mischief against India.
The dismantling of the Pakistani nation state into smaller states is in the best interest of India in particular and for the stability of South Asia in general. I would assume that India would do her best to exercise influence in Afghanistan to ensure that Pakistani nuclear weapons would not be stationed there out of range of Indian Air Force (the "strategic depth" sought by the Pakistani Army). If the Indian administration has any strategy, it would be to assiduously work towards breaking up Pakistan.
I suppose it would take another decade for NYT to come to a similar conclusion that a feudal state devoid of a national identity cannot be propped up by foreign handouts and a common dislike of India.
Till then we will listen to the sermons over morning coffee :)
— Ajit, Sunnyvale, CA
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers
35.
May 19, 2009 9:00 am
Link
and Srilanka...India in spite of fatal losses (e.g., Rajiv Gandhi) has failed to address Tamils concern in Sri Lanka for over 25 yrs now. Its initiative for peace keeping forces and to aid Sril Lankan military would not have been necessary had India has supported the cause of Tamils in Srilanka. In these post-mortem efforts, Indian government stance has also earned the wrath of its own people (in TamilNadu).
— Balaji Raman, Singapore
Editorial in New York Times : India’s Challenges, Also Readers' Comments
Published: May 18, 2009
The Indian National Congress party cannot afford a prolonged celebration after its overwhelming election victory. Much of the postvote analysis has focused on the daunting domestic agenda. But now that Congress has a stable mandate — and can shuck a fractious coalition — it is time for India to exercise the kind of regional and global leadership expected of a rising power.
It can start with neighboring Pakistan, arguably the most dangerous country on earth. A report in The Times on Monday reminds us just how dangerous: The United States believes Islamabad is rapidly expanding a nuclear arsenal thought to already contain 80 to 100 weapons.
We have consistently supported appropriate military aid and increased economic aid to help Pakistan fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda, strengthen democratic institutions and improve the life of its people. Squandering precious resources on nuclear bombs is disgraceful when Pakistan is troubled by economic crisis and facing an insurgency that threatens its very existence.
Trying to keep up to 100 bombs from extremists is hard enough; expanding the nuclear stockpile makes the challenge worse. Officials in Washington are legitimately asking whether billions of dollars in proposed new assistance might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program. They should demand assurances it will not be.
India is essential to what Pakistan will do. New Delhi exercised welcome restraint when it did not attack Pakistan after the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai by Pakistani-based extremists. But tensions remain high, and the Pakistani Army continues to view India as its main adversary. India should take the lead in initiating arms control talks with Pakistan and China. It should also declare its intention to stop producing nuclear weapons fuel, even before a proposed multinational treaty is negotiated. That would provide leverage for Washington and others to exhort Pakistan to do the same.
It is past time for India — stronger both economically and in international stature — to find a way to resolve tensions with Pakistan over Kashmir. If that festering sore cannot be addressed directly, then — as Stephen P. Cohen, a South Asia expert at the Brookings Institution, suggests — broader regional talks on environmental and water issues might be an interim way to find common ground. Ignoring Kashmir is no longer an option.
India has played a constructive role in helping rebuild Afghanistan, but it must take steps to allay Islamabad’s concerns that this is a plan to encircle Pakistan. It should foster regional trade with Pakistan and Afghanistan. More broadly, India must help to revive world trade talks by opening its markets. It could use its considerable trade clout with Iran, Sudan and Myanmar to curb Tehran’s nuclear program, end the genocide in Darfur and press Myanmar’s junta to expand human rights.
India is the dominant power in South Asia, but it has been hesitant to assume its responsibilities. The Congress Party has to do better — starting with Pakistan.
The Indian National Congress party cannot afford a prolonged celebration after its overwhelming election victory. Much of the postvote analysis has focused on the daunting domestic agenda. But now that Congress has a stable mandate — and can shuck a fractious coalition — it is time for India to exercise the kind of regional and global leadership expected of a rising power.
It can start with neighboring Pakistan, arguably the most dangerous country on earth. A report in The Times on Monday reminds us just how dangerous: The United States believes Islamabad is rapidly expanding a nuclear arsenal thought to already contain 80 to 100 weapons.
We have consistently supported appropriate military aid and increased economic aid to help Pakistan fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda, strengthen democratic institutions and improve the life of its people. Squandering precious resources on nuclear bombs is disgraceful when Pakistan is troubled by economic crisis and facing an insurgency that threatens its very existence.
Trying to keep up to 100 bombs from extremists is hard enough; expanding the nuclear stockpile makes the challenge worse. Officials in Washington are legitimately asking whether billions of dollars in proposed new assistance might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program. They should demand assurances it will not be.
India is essential to what Pakistan will do. New Delhi exercised welcome restraint when it did not attack Pakistan after the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai by Pakistani-based extremists. But tensions remain high, and the Pakistani Army continues to view India as its main adversary. India should take the lead in initiating arms control talks with Pakistan and China. It should also declare its intention to stop producing nuclear weapons fuel, even before a proposed multinational treaty is negotiated. That would provide leverage for Washington and others to exhort Pakistan to do the same.
It is past time for India — stronger both economically and in international stature — to find a way to resolve tensions with Pakistan over Kashmir. If that festering sore cannot be addressed directly, then — as Stephen P. Cohen, a South Asia expert at the Brookings Institution, suggests — broader regional talks on environmental and water issues might be an interim way to find common ground. Ignoring Kashmir is no longer an option.
India has played a constructive role in helping rebuild Afghanistan, but it must take steps to allay Islamabad’s concerns that this is a plan to encircle Pakistan. It should foster regional trade with Pakistan and Afghanistan. More broadly, India must help to revive world trade talks by opening its markets. It could use its considerable trade clout with Iran, Sudan and Myanmar to curb Tehran’s nuclear program, end the genocide in Darfur and press Myanmar’s junta to expand human rights.
India is the dominant power in South Asia, but it has been hesitant to assume its responsibilities. The Congress Party has to do better — starting with Pakistan.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
New York Times reader comment on India going to the polls, "The world's biggest exercise in democracy"
April 15, 2009 It is truly the greatest show on Earth, an ode to a diverse and democratic ethos, where 700 million + of humanity vote, providing their small part in directing their ancient civilization into the future. It is no less impressive when done in a neighborhood which includes de-stabilizing and violent Pakistan, China, and Burma.
Its challenges are immense, more so probably than anywhere else, particularly in development and fending off terrorism -- but considering these challenges and its neighbors, it is even more astounding that the most diverse nation on Earth, with hundreds of languages, all religions and cultures, is not only surviving, but thriving.
The nation where Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism were born, which is the second largest Muslim nation on Earth; where Christianity has existed for 2000 years; where the oldest Jewish synagogues and Jewish communities have resided since the Romans burnt their 2nd temple; where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile reside; where the Zorostrians from Persia have thrived since being thrown out of their ancient homeland; where Armenians and Syrians and many others have to come live; where the Paris-based OECD said was the largest economy on Earth 1500 of the last 2000 years, including the 2nd largest only 200 years ago; where 3 Muslim Presidents have been elected, where a Sikh is Prime Minister and the head of the ruling party a Catholic Italian woman, where the President is also a woman, succeeding a Muslim President who as a rocket scientist was a hero in the nation; where a booming economy is lifting 40 million out of poverty each year and is expected to have the majority of its population in the middle class, already equal to the entire US population, by 2025; where its optimism and vibrancy is manifested in its movies, arts, economic growth, and voting, despite all the incredible challenges and hardships; where all the great powers are vying for influence, as it itself finds its place in the world.
Where all of this is happening, is India, and as greater than 1/10 of humanity gets ready to vote, it is an inspiration to all the World.
V Mitchell, New York, NY
Its challenges are immense, more so probably than anywhere else, particularly in development and fending off terrorism -- but considering these challenges and its neighbors, it is even more astounding that the most diverse nation on Earth, with hundreds of languages, all religions and cultures, is not only surviving, but thriving.
The nation where Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism were born, which is the second largest Muslim nation on Earth; where Christianity has existed for 2000 years; where the oldest Jewish synagogues and Jewish communities have resided since the Romans burnt their 2nd temple; where the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile reside; where the Zorostrians from Persia have thrived since being thrown out of their ancient homeland; where Armenians and Syrians and many others have to come live; where the Paris-based OECD said was the largest economy on Earth 1500 of the last 2000 years, including the 2nd largest only 200 years ago; where 3 Muslim Presidents have been elected, where a Sikh is Prime Minister and the head of the ruling party a Catholic Italian woman, where the President is also a woman, succeeding a Muslim President who as a rocket scientist was a hero in the nation; where a booming economy is lifting 40 million out of poverty each year and is expected to have the majority of its population in the middle class, already equal to the entire US population, by 2025; where its optimism and vibrancy is manifested in its movies, arts, economic growth, and voting, despite all the incredible challenges and hardships; where all the great powers are vying for influence, as it itself finds its place in the world.
Where all of this is happening, is India, and as greater than 1/10 of humanity gets ready to vote, it is an inspiration to all the World.
V Mitchell, New York, NY
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Pakistan: an imploding nation
On the ideological plane, the idea of Pakistan has ceased to be meaningful; it is a failed state led by a reckless elite who could not care less.
Dire warnings about the fate of Pakistan have become daily fare now. The country’s Afghan border frayed a while ago. Now the Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents have taken the war to its heart: Swat yesterday, Buner today, will Islamabad fall too?
Possibly in one to six months, if David Kilcullen is to be believed. Kilcullen is an adviser to David Petraeus, commander of the US Central Command that oversees operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He made those controversial remarks to the Washington Post in March. He explained the rationale of his statement in an interview to Mint on Wednesday.
Pakistan is today a nation without a political gyroscope. Its political leadership is at war with itself and its army thinks India is top enemy while the Taliban steadily inch towards territorial control. In fact, its army elite is inclined in favour of the Taliban. When the radicals do take over the reins in Islamabad, it would be a unique example of a nation handing over the levers of state power to non-state actors.
This is not a vision of doom. On the ideological plane, the idea of Pakistan has ceased to be meaningful. It never was a promised land for the Muslims of South Asia. The first blow came with the secession of Bangladesh. Then came the Baloch and Sindhi insurgencies. Finally, by the time the last Soviet tanks moved out of Afghanistan in 1989, it was well on its way to turning into a powder keg of feuding ethnic groups, competing regionalisms and a heady brew of medieval Islam. Twenty years later, it is a failed state led by a reckless elite who could not care less.
The question that India and Indians need to address is: What is to be done? Any Indian help is certain to be construed as a conspiracy to dismember the country. That path should be avoided. Apart from practical arrangements (for example, occupying certain territories in a pre-emptive fashion so that the Taliban do not threaten India), there should be efforts at thinking about envisioning alternative political futures for Pakistan. Should there be a confederation of states such as Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab? Should the North-West Frontier Province and the tribal areas be merged into a greater Afghanistan? Or should the present territories remain with all powers to the states and residuary powers with a weak centre? These are questions that cannot be ignored any longer.
Can Pakistan remain a viable nation state? Tell us your views !
Dire warnings about the fate of Pakistan have become daily fare now. The country’s Afghan border frayed a while ago. Now the Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents have taken the war to its heart: Swat yesterday, Buner today, will Islamabad fall too?
Possibly in one to six months, if David Kilcullen is to be believed. Kilcullen is an adviser to David Petraeus, commander of the US Central Command that oversees operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He made those controversial remarks to the Washington Post in March. He explained the rationale of his statement in an interview to Mint on Wednesday.
Pakistan is today a nation without a political gyroscope. Its political leadership is at war with itself and its army thinks India is top enemy while the Taliban steadily inch towards territorial control. In fact, its army elite is inclined in favour of the Taliban. When the radicals do take over the reins in Islamabad, it would be a unique example of a nation handing over the levers of state power to non-state actors.
This is not a vision of doom. On the ideological plane, the idea of Pakistan has ceased to be meaningful. It never was a promised land for the Muslims of South Asia. The first blow came with the secession of Bangladesh. Then came the Baloch and Sindhi insurgencies. Finally, by the time the last Soviet tanks moved out of Afghanistan in 1989, it was well on its way to turning into a powder keg of feuding ethnic groups, competing regionalisms and a heady brew of medieval Islam. Twenty years later, it is a failed state led by a reckless elite who could not care less.
The question that India and Indians need to address is: What is to be done? Any Indian help is certain to be construed as a conspiracy to dismember the country. That path should be avoided. Apart from practical arrangements (for example, occupying certain territories in a pre-emptive fashion so that the Taliban do not threaten India), there should be efforts at thinking about envisioning alternative political futures for Pakistan. Should there be a confederation of states such as Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab? Should the North-West Frontier Province and the tribal areas be merged into a greater Afghanistan? Or should the present territories remain with all powers to the states and residuary powers with a weak centre? These are questions that cannot be ignored any longer.
Can Pakistan remain a viable nation state? Tell us your views !
Friday, April 3, 2009
Pak should shift focus from India to curbing terror inside: US
New York (PTI): Warning that terrorists operating in safe havens in Pakistan were preparing to attack that country and Afghanistan, a top US military commander has asked Islamabad to change focus from fighting India to combating militants within its own borders.
"The Taliban, in particular, are going both ways now," Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff, said.
"They are coming towards Islamabad and they are actually going towards Kabul. I am completely convinced that the vast majority of leaders in Pakistan understands the seriousness of the threat".
Mr. Mullen, who has worked extensively to build a relationship with Pakistani Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kiyani, noted that the Pakistan army had difficulties transforming from its military that recruited, trained, deployed and promoted its officers on performance along the eastern front with India to one that focussed instead on terrorists within its own border.
But, he admitted "that's not going to change overnight".
His remarks come as the US Defence Department unveiled a $ 3-billion plan to train and equip Pakistan's military over the next five years, New York Times reported.
The funds, the paper said, would pay for helicopters, night-vision goggles and other equipment and counter-insurgency training for Pakistan's special forces and paramilitary frontier corps.
"The Taliban, in particular, are going both ways now," Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff, said.
"They are coming towards Islamabad and they are actually going towards Kabul. I am completely convinced that the vast majority of leaders in Pakistan understands the seriousness of the threat".
Mr. Mullen, who has worked extensively to build a relationship with Pakistani Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kiyani, noted that the Pakistan army had difficulties transforming from its military that recruited, trained, deployed and promoted its officers on performance along the eastern front with India to one that focussed instead on terrorists within its own border.
But, he admitted "that's not going to change overnight".
His remarks come as the US Defence Department unveiled a $ 3-billion plan to train and equip Pakistan's military over the next five years, New York Times reported.
The funds, the paper said, would pay for helicopters, night-vision goggles and other equipment and counter-insurgency training for Pakistan's special forces and paramilitary frontier corps.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
ANALYSIS: Talking to the Taliban —Najmuddin A Shaikh ( Ex-Foreign Secy. of Pakistan )
While the induction of the Taliban into the power structure in Afghanistan may be acceptable as part of the American exit strategy, a similar compromise in Pakistan would be entirely unacceptable
In Pakistan, we are so taken with the domestic political turbulence that little or no attention is being paid by our media and particularly by our analysts to developments in Afghanistan, and even more importantly to the hints that have started appearing in the American media about the direction the Obama administration’s review of its Afghan policy is likely to take.
First things first, we have had in Afghanistan a mini-crisis about the date for the presidential elections. According to the constitution, elections should have been held at least thirty days before the expiry of the term of the president. The election commission however decided that given weather conditions and the difficulties associated with voter registration, the election could be held at the earliest in August. This announcement was immediately endorsed by the US and the UN.
The constitution has however been interpreted as holding that the president’s term cannot be extended even if elections have not been held. It apparently makes no provision for who would take over in the interim. In a belated move, Hamid Karzai issued a decree calling upon the election commission to hold the election before the expiry of his term.
This caused an explosion of protests by Karzai’s opponents and statements by the Americans that the date should remain as decided by the election Commission. Karzai has backtracked and accepted that the election commission’s decision should stand, but is now looking for a means to continue in office until the elections. Whether he succeeds in doing so may depend on the Afghan parliament where Karzai’s supporters appear to be dwindling. How this situation will be resolved remains up in the air.
In the meanwhile, the American and other western media has been full of stories about the cold shoulder that Karzai is getting from the Obama administration, and about the corruption of the Karzai brothers who, from being minor restaurant owners in America, have now become millionaire businessmen in Afghanistan. There is particular concern being expressed about Wali Karzai, who maintains a grip on Kandahar’s political life and uses it to promote his interests in the drug trade.
Alongside this indictment of the Karzai family have been stories of maladministration and poor governance to which is attributed the growth in the Taliban insurgency. Are the Americans preparing to dump Karzai in favour of some other more effective leader? They don’t seem to have much of a choice. No Pashtun figure of any consequence and popularity appears to be available.
On the other side, Obama, after a period of reflection, has yielded to the pleas of his commanders in Afghanistan and sanctioned an immediate 17,000-strong troop augmentation in Afghanistan. He has, however, postponed a decision on the remaining 13,000 demanded by commanders until the review of Afghan policy — in consultation with Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries — is complete.
Surprising for some has been the decision to invite the Iranians to participate in this review. Secretary Clinton has explained that Iran had cooperated with the US when it first moved against the Taliban in Afghanistan and suggested that this continued to be a common interest. It would seem, however, that this is part of the Obama plan to reach out to those who are prepared to “unclench” their fist and to find a way of assuring Iran that Obama is not looking for regime change, but instead trying to find common ground even while opposing Iran’s nuclear programme.
While apparently far fetched, it may also be an effort to persuade Iran to permit the use of its ports for the transportation of American supplies to Afghanistan. This need has become urgent because of instability in Pakistan and the Kyrgyz demand, presumably under Russian pressure, for the US to vacate Manas Airbase. The Russians have permitted shipments across their territory and have indicated that under the right circumstances, they would permit further supplies. But the US would be loath to make this their primary supply route since they could then be required to pay the heavy price of recognising Russia’s right to have its sphere of influence in Central Asia and to be the only route to Europe for Central Asian fossil fuel.
The Obama administration has been consulting extensively with its European allies on the Afghan situation. More such consultations will be held before the review of Afghan policy is completed, but already it is evident that Obama’s popularity in Europe notwithstanding, the Europeans are not going to offer additional troops for Afghanistan nor is there likely to be any change in the position of countries like Canada and Netherlands, who have indicated dates on which their contingents will be withdrawn from Afghanistan.
All the US can hope for is a greater European effort to support the economic and institutional development effort in Afghanistan. So far, however, the Europeans have been found wanting on this front as well.
In the popular perception, even though the Afghan war has been ongoing for seven years, it will henceforth be Obama’s war because he had maintained throughout the campaign that this was the war America had to fight and win, in contrast to Bush’s war of choice in Iraq. Obama cannot therefore afford to withdraw from Afghanistan but he can revise the aims and objectives he sets for declaring victory. Hence the statement by Defence Secretary Robert Gates that all the US should aim for is a situation where Afghanistan cannot be used as a haven for terrorists wanting to attack the US and its allies. Subsequently, it was only logical for Obama to talk, albeit cautiously, about the possibility of negotiating with the Taliban.
However, most American analysts suggest that there is good reason to believe that the haven for terrorists has already shifted from Afghanistan to Pakistan, and that even if the Taliban were to be sharing power in Afghanistan, they would have no ambitions extending beyond Afghanistan. They would therefore not pose the sort of danger to America that they did while playing host to Al Qaeda.
No one is prepared to take an equally benign view of Pakistan. Juxtaposed with the onset of the current political crisis and following closely on the “deal” in Swat has been the statement by the American charge d’affaires in Afghanistan that Pakistan is more dangerous than Afghanistan. (This view has frequently appeared in the American media but coming form an American diplomat in Afghanistan, it has added significance.). More recently, there have been reports suggesting that American intelligence agencies now believe that the Lashkar-e Tayba rather than Al Qaeda may be the organisation that launches the next terrorist attack on the West.
Let us also be clear that while the induction of the Taliban into the power structure in Afghanistan may be acceptable as part of the American exit strategy, a similar compromise in Pakistan would be entirely unacceptable. The simple reason for this is that here, the Taliban or their local cohorts are seen as sanctuary providers for Al Qaeda and as having many in the mélange of extremist groups operating in Pakistan that have strong links in the Pakistani diaspora in the US and Europe.
Today in Washington, the political crisis in Afghanistan, while real and worrisome, is small potatoes compared to the concern about Pakistan and what the current crisis will mean for the tribal areas, where the army has achieved some success, and for Swat, where the pact with Sufi Mohammad is being watched warily.
The writer is a former foreign secretary
In Pakistan, we are so taken with the domestic political turbulence that little or no attention is being paid by our media and particularly by our analysts to developments in Afghanistan, and even more importantly to the hints that have started appearing in the American media about the direction the Obama administration’s review of its Afghan policy is likely to take.
First things first, we have had in Afghanistan a mini-crisis about the date for the presidential elections. According to the constitution, elections should have been held at least thirty days before the expiry of the term of the president. The election commission however decided that given weather conditions and the difficulties associated with voter registration, the election could be held at the earliest in August. This announcement was immediately endorsed by the US and the UN.
The constitution has however been interpreted as holding that the president’s term cannot be extended even if elections have not been held. It apparently makes no provision for who would take over in the interim. In a belated move, Hamid Karzai issued a decree calling upon the election commission to hold the election before the expiry of his term.
This caused an explosion of protests by Karzai’s opponents and statements by the Americans that the date should remain as decided by the election Commission. Karzai has backtracked and accepted that the election commission’s decision should stand, but is now looking for a means to continue in office until the elections. Whether he succeeds in doing so may depend on the Afghan parliament where Karzai’s supporters appear to be dwindling. How this situation will be resolved remains up in the air.
In the meanwhile, the American and other western media has been full of stories about the cold shoulder that Karzai is getting from the Obama administration, and about the corruption of the Karzai brothers who, from being minor restaurant owners in America, have now become millionaire businessmen in Afghanistan. There is particular concern being expressed about Wali Karzai, who maintains a grip on Kandahar’s political life and uses it to promote his interests in the drug trade.
Alongside this indictment of the Karzai family have been stories of maladministration and poor governance to which is attributed the growth in the Taliban insurgency. Are the Americans preparing to dump Karzai in favour of some other more effective leader? They don’t seem to have much of a choice. No Pashtun figure of any consequence and popularity appears to be available.
On the other side, Obama, after a period of reflection, has yielded to the pleas of his commanders in Afghanistan and sanctioned an immediate 17,000-strong troop augmentation in Afghanistan. He has, however, postponed a decision on the remaining 13,000 demanded by commanders until the review of Afghan policy — in consultation with Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries — is complete.
Surprising for some has been the decision to invite the Iranians to participate in this review. Secretary Clinton has explained that Iran had cooperated with the US when it first moved against the Taliban in Afghanistan and suggested that this continued to be a common interest. It would seem, however, that this is part of the Obama plan to reach out to those who are prepared to “unclench” their fist and to find a way of assuring Iran that Obama is not looking for regime change, but instead trying to find common ground even while opposing Iran’s nuclear programme.
While apparently far fetched, it may also be an effort to persuade Iran to permit the use of its ports for the transportation of American supplies to Afghanistan. This need has become urgent because of instability in Pakistan and the Kyrgyz demand, presumably under Russian pressure, for the US to vacate Manas Airbase. The Russians have permitted shipments across their territory and have indicated that under the right circumstances, they would permit further supplies. But the US would be loath to make this their primary supply route since they could then be required to pay the heavy price of recognising Russia’s right to have its sphere of influence in Central Asia and to be the only route to Europe for Central Asian fossil fuel.
The Obama administration has been consulting extensively with its European allies on the Afghan situation. More such consultations will be held before the review of Afghan policy is completed, but already it is evident that Obama’s popularity in Europe notwithstanding, the Europeans are not going to offer additional troops for Afghanistan nor is there likely to be any change in the position of countries like Canada and Netherlands, who have indicated dates on which their contingents will be withdrawn from Afghanistan.
All the US can hope for is a greater European effort to support the economic and institutional development effort in Afghanistan. So far, however, the Europeans have been found wanting on this front as well.
In the popular perception, even though the Afghan war has been ongoing for seven years, it will henceforth be Obama’s war because he had maintained throughout the campaign that this was the war America had to fight and win, in contrast to Bush’s war of choice in Iraq. Obama cannot therefore afford to withdraw from Afghanistan but he can revise the aims and objectives he sets for declaring victory. Hence the statement by Defence Secretary Robert Gates that all the US should aim for is a situation where Afghanistan cannot be used as a haven for terrorists wanting to attack the US and its allies. Subsequently, it was only logical for Obama to talk, albeit cautiously, about the possibility of negotiating with the Taliban.
However, most American analysts suggest that there is good reason to believe that the haven for terrorists has already shifted from Afghanistan to Pakistan, and that even if the Taliban were to be sharing power in Afghanistan, they would have no ambitions extending beyond Afghanistan. They would therefore not pose the sort of danger to America that they did while playing host to Al Qaeda.
No one is prepared to take an equally benign view of Pakistan. Juxtaposed with the onset of the current political crisis and following closely on the “deal” in Swat has been the statement by the American charge d’affaires in Afghanistan that Pakistan is more dangerous than Afghanistan. (This view has frequently appeared in the American media but coming form an American diplomat in Afghanistan, it has added significance.). More recently, there have been reports suggesting that American intelligence agencies now believe that the Lashkar-e Tayba rather than Al Qaeda may be the organisation that launches the next terrorist attack on the West.
Let us also be clear that while the induction of the Taliban into the power structure in Afghanistan may be acceptable as part of the American exit strategy, a similar compromise in Pakistan would be entirely unacceptable. The simple reason for this is that here, the Taliban or their local cohorts are seen as sanctuary providers for Al Qaeda and as having many in the mélange of extremist groups operating in Pakistan that have strong links in the Pakistani diaspora in the US and Europe.
Today in Washington, the political crisis in Afghanistan, while real and worrisome, is small potatoes compared to the concern about Pakistan and what the current crisis will mean for the tribal areas, where the army has achieved some success, and for Swat, where the pact with Sufi Mohammad is being watched warily.
The writer is a former foreign secretary
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Public Platform: Speak Up Openly
Falsifying history for political gain (Organiser, 18-1-2009); Rama Sethu is an important symbol of that which unites the whole of India. All the literature of every religion of India has one or more reference to it. This way it becomes the symbol of the Indian integrity. This is well-known to everybody including those who want to destroy it. The author of the article points out this important factor that we, the Hindus, feel this in our marrow. But, what makes us sad is that the author, whose credentials about the knowledge on history is not clear, supports what he himself criticises. If the UPA government distorts the “facts” with their “beliefs”, which the author complains about, but wants to put his “beliefs” over “facts of history”. Instead of questioning the authenticity of the facts that the NCERT materials propagate, the author wants to do what the pseudo-secularists media wants us to do. The article could have given the authenticity of the claim that the Mahabharata could have occurred some light years back, or analysed the historical or scientific authenticity of what NCERT books propagate. For example, our textbooks force us to believe that Jesus is a historical fact, and make us write “BC” and “AD” when there is no strong archaeological or literary proof outside of the Bible. The New Testament itself was actually compiled when King James was the King of England. The list is endless.
—ANANDA GANESH
by e-mail
One of the major accusations by leftist scholars is that Hindutva proponents intentionally or ignorantly blur the boundary between mythology and history and the article in question seems to provide proof for exactly the same. The article states based on the authority of Mahabharata that the Vedas were revealed by God in Satya Yuga. Satya Yuga preceded Treta in which Sri Ram was born and his famous Sethu connecting India with Sri Lanka was built up. It goes on to state on the authority of NASA shuttle that Ram Sethu was built up around 1,750,000 years ago. Seasoned archeologist BB Lal whose lifetime archeological work has demolished the Aryan invasion theory and who gave the first conclusive archeological proof for Ayodhya temple, states clearly that Ramayana should have been composed around 700 BCE. Equally astonishing is the way the writer eulogises Manu. He states that the Manusmriti is not only the first and foremost book of Hindu law, but is held in high esteem throughout the world as a great scripture. There are many Smritis and Manu is simply one of them. Its value is historical and to some extent ethical. But today we can definitely say that in terms of humanitarian spirit and egalitarianism the present Indian Constitution definitely surpasses Manusmriti. And every reasonable historian would agree that Manu Smriti’s present form could be traced to the Sunga period. Our history textbooks do exhibit a negative bias towards Indic dharmas and a positive approach to Abrahamic creeds. We need to fight this. At the same time we do not have the luxury of inventing a type of fundamentalism, alien to Hindu spirit. We need to differentiate between mythologies (which happen in the inner plane and are symbolic in nature) and history.
—S ARAVINDAN NEELAKANDAN,
441 Kavimani Nager, Nagerkovil, Kanyakumari
Vibrant Gujarat summit mops up 7 billion investment (Organiser, 25-1-2009); It is raining money and jobs in Gujarat as with the two-day Vibrant Gujarat summit just concluded in Ahmedabad and Tata’s Nano car project shifted there, CM Narendra Modi is on centre stage. The state hosted delegates from 37 countries and the total number of MoUs signed was 8558 for Rs 12 lakh crore in the summit represented by Muslim-ruled countries and Japan, Briton etc, paving the way for about 1.4 million jobs in the state.
—ACHYUT RAILKAR,
Mumbai
Join madrasa, why sit for tough CBSE board exam? (Organiser, 11-1-2009); Your critical view about the pro-Muslim decision of the UPA government to recognise the Islamic religious schools—madrasas’s graduation certificate—as equal to the CBSE certificate and hence eligible for higher professional degree courses is very commendable. It should be opposed by organising Hindu mass agitations. To start, let one of the Hindu organisations should take up the issues to the Supreme Court. The Indian Constitution is a democratic secular constitution. According to Oxford Dictionary, if the affairs of any religious group and its assets are controlled and directed by a government, elected on purely secular votes, it is not a secular or non-religious government.
—RAVI VERMA,
28, DD Village, Kochi
Needle of suspicion points to ex-IAS Congress leader (Organiser, 11-1-2009); The article is a clear documentary evidence that ex-IAS officer RK Nayak hatched and executed the conspiracy of murder of Swamiji. The way he made arrangements of vacating hostels in the campus of NISWAS, closing of Janavani daily newspaper office just one day before the murder speaks volume about his involvement in the murder and above all he deliberately left Kandhamal on the same day. All the local media and investigating agencies have named RK Nayak behind the murder of Swamiji. Even Swamiji himself had written that RK Nayak had instigated attack on him on 26-12-07 and he was conspiring to kill him. This is more than enough to arrest and punish the ex-IAS officer.
—PRADMOD PRABHAKAR VALSANGKAR,
HNo 1-10-81, Dwarakapuram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad
The brigade that undermines national security (Organiser, 11-1-2009); I do not agree with Shri MV Kamath’s assertion that violence is not necessarily the only way to defeat an enemy. Non-violence is not only life-saving but it is grace abounding. Some Indians have a false sense of complacency that Gandhian concept of non-violence has achieved miraculous result. On the contrary, it has failed to achieve anything tangible, other than publicity value.
—NIKUNJA BIHARI HAOLDAR,
Gutri, 24-North Pargana, WB
Pak textbooks build hate culture against India (Organiser, 11-1-2009); Information given by Shri Arif Mohammed Khan in his article is revealing. Such good persons among Muslims are rare, who dare to write facts against Pakistan. Shri Khan would certainly be looked down upon as a kafir by Muslim fundamentalists who guide the Muslim masses. The hate culture in textbooks of Pakistan coupled with Islamic teachings of hatred, both being promoted by Pakistan government, have made the ordinary Pakistani brute to harm India and the Hindus in all possible manners.
—ANAND PRAKASH,
72/Sector 8, Panchkula
The Year That Was (Organiser, 4-1-2009); In this editorial you have briefed the important events of the year 2008. The authorities of India should go deep into them so that shortcomings on various fronts like inflation, public distribution system, repeated price rising of essential commodities, law and order problems etc, may not be repeated in the current year 2009. Other authors have tried their best to point out pros and cons of present situation of the nation. But the use of such advise will be there if one has will to do something for the betterment of nation and its citizens. This is true that where there is will there is way. Shri Mohan Bhagwat has rightly stated that vote-bank politics is weakening the nation.
—LAKSHMI CHAND,
Bhangri, Kasoli, Solan
Terror targets economy (Organiser, 4-1-2009); The writer says that we have never tried to discover the fine cultural thread that binds India together. The single name “Hindu” unites the people with diverse cultures, and religions, living in the single land called Bharat. Those who came later, after centuries of common living, should have, in natural course, developed love for the family with the home Hindustan and the people Hindu. Instead we observe emergence of divisive attitude even among the Hindus. This is the age of reason and disintegration.
—SD LAGHATE,
Sankat Mochan Ashram, Ram Krishna Puran-6, New Delhi
The cure for terrorism is Virat Brihad Hindutva (Organiser, 18-1-2008); Dr. Rudra Pratap Chattopadhyaya in his letter has willfully quoted a piece of the verse 2/98 from the Quran and derived wrong conclusion. I quote the full text of the said verse: “Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His Angles and Prophets, to Gabriel and Michael, Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject faith.” I invite the readers to compare the text with the concocted version given by the writer.
—TANVEER FATIMA,
Sandesh Bhavanam, Lakkad Kota, Chatta Bazaar, Hydarabad
Counter terror with coercive diplomacy and covert operation (Organiser, 4-1-2009); The 26/11 Mumbai carnage has convinced the whole segment of aam aadmi that counter-jehad operation is too serious a business to be left in the hands of netas and babus. In the aftermath of the 26/11 Mumbai carnage, the aam aadmi, therefore, gave the order of the boot the guilty netas and babus. The aam aadmi was thus empowered and decided that from now onward the war against the jehadis is a war of the people, by the people and for the people. How one can conduct the war and what should be our plan of the battle? Firstly each one of us should maintain a daily diary to note down all the jehadi-related inputs and rumours that we hear. These may be of local interest or of wider interests. Naturally we should give precedence to inputs that are of local interest. We may then discuss these inputs within our family circle and within our intimate circle of friends. We can then take further action according to consensus. If on a particular date there is no input, still it is equally important that we make a nil entry for that day. Secondly children must be sent to voluntary social organisation like NCC where training in character building is given. This will create a broad base of future citizens who will have quick response to face unexpected situations Thirdly adults should form vigilance committees in their local areas. Vigilance patrols should go out regularly.
—DR. AN BANERJEE,32, Sagar Tarang, 15/A, Khan Seaface, Worli, Mumbai
For the first time the anguish of the general Indian Muslims over the Mumbai mayhem has become visible. They take out processions in protest, observed a subdued Eid and their prominent religious personalities declared that killing of innocents cannot be glorified as jehadi acts. Previously also there were voices of protest. But they appear to be exceptional and not being listened to by their co-religionist fundamentalists. They would do better if they come out with a declaration that non-Muslims, being non-believers, are not murtads. Similarly Muslims who have accepted the modern-day need of co-existing with non-Muslims are also not murtads. This clarification will go a long way to dispel the false notion of performing a jehadi act and attaining jannat thereby. The idea of religious expansionism is anachronistic in 21st century.
—NK DAS GUPTA,
12/D/6, DPP Road, Kolkata
All terror cases should be tacked under military court martial, since it is the military who have suffered the most due to the terror. No civil court should have the power to review the same. The sentences should be awarded within the quickest possible time. The bodies of the terrorists should be handed over to hospitals for dissection studies. There is no point in giving part of our land for burying.
—BV RAO,
No 66, Netaji Layout, BCC Colony, Attiguppe, Vijaynagar, Bangalore
Indo-Pak animosity: A way out (Organiser, 4-1-2009); It is fallacious to assume that Muslims are not part of the mainstream. The first question is, what on earth is mainstream? If it is some kind of monolithic superhighway expecting everyone to follow a jet speed, then why does everyone need to enter it? In India, despite having such superhighways we still have bullock carts and camel carts slowly traversing all the wrong and right paths and no one minds. What I mean is, let us first define what is mainstream?
—YOUSUF SAEED,
New Delhi
RBI to prod banks to lend: In view of the reduction of the REPO rate to 5.5 per cent and the lowering of the CRR and SLR, there is a reasonable infusion of liquidity into the economic system. This should automatically result into increased bank lending. However, this has not been done. Hence what is absolutely essential for the RBI is not to push the banks to lend money but to prod them to do so by treading a fine line. However, a very important question that arises at this moment is whether the bank can reduce the deposit interest rates without causing a fight of deposits to 8 per cent tax-free small savings schemes. Hence, the judgment called for on the part of the banks is to make a fine balance while remembering that lending by them is absolutely essential to service their depositors.
—RN LAKHOTIA,
S-228, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi
Public Platform: Speak Up Openly
Falsifying history for political gain (Organiser, 18-1-2009); Rama Sethu is an important symbol of that which unites the whole of India. All the literature of every religion of India has one or more reference to it. This way it becomes the symbol of the Indian integrity. This is well-known to everybody including those who want to destroy it. The author of the article points out this important factor that we, the Hindus, feel this in our marrow. But, what makes us sad is that the author, whose credentials about the knowledge on history is not clear, supports what he himself criticises. If the UPA government distorts the “facts” with their “beliefs”, which the author complains about, but wants to put his “beliefs” over “facts of history”. Instead of questioning the authenticity of the facts that the NCERT materials propagate, the author wants to do what the pseudo-secularists media wants us to do. The article could have given the authenticity of the claim that the Mahabharata could have occurred some light years back, or analysed the historical or scientific authenticity of what NCERT books propagate. For example, our textbooks force us to believe that Jesus is a historical fact, and make us write “BC” and “AD” when there is no strong archaeological or literary proof outside of the Bible. The New Testament itself was actually compiled when King James was the King of England. The list is endless.
—ANANDA GANESH
by e-mail
One of the major accusations by leftist scholars is that Hindutva proponents intentionally or ignorantly blur the boundary between mythology and history and the article in question seems to provide proof for exactly the same. The article states based on the authority of Mahabharata that the Vedas were revealed by God in Satya Yuga. Satya Yuga preceded Treta in which Sri Ram was born and his famous Sethu connecting India with Sri Lanka was built up. It goes on to state on the authority of NASA shuttle that Ram Sethu was built up around 1,750,000 years ago. Seasoned archeologist BB Lal whose lifetime archeological work has demolished the Aryan invasion theory and who gave the first conclusive archeological proof for Ayodhya temple, states clearly that Ramayana should have been composed around 700 BCE. Equally astonishing is the way the writer eulogises Manu. He states that the Manusmriti is not only the first and foremost book of Hindu law, but is held in high esteem throughout the world as a great scripture. There are many Smritis and Manu is simply one of them. Its value is historical and to some extent ethical. But today we can definitely say that in terms of humanitarian spirit and egalitarianism the present Indian Constitution definitely surpasses Manusmriti. And every reasonable historian would agree that Manu Smriti’s present form could be traced to the Sunga period. Our history textbooks do exhibit a negative bias towards Indic dharmas and a positive approach to Abrahamic creeds. We need to fight this. At the same time we do not have the luxury of inventing a type of fundamentalism, alien to Hindu spirit. We need to differentiate between mythologies (which happen in the inner plane and are symbolic in nature) and history.
—S ARAVINDAN NEELAKANDAN,
441 Kavimani Nager, Nagerkovil, Kanyakumari
Vibrant Gujarat summit mops up 7 billion investment (Organiser, 25-1-2009); It is raining money and jobs in Gujarat as with the two-day Vibrant Gujarat summit just concluded in Ahmedabad and Tata’s Nano car project shifted there, CM Narendra Modi is on centre stage. The state hosted delegates from 37 countries and the total number of MoUs signed was 8558 for Rs 12 lakh crore in the summit represented by Muslim-ruled countries and Japan, Briton etc, paving the way for about 1.4 million jobs in the state.
—ACHYUT RAILKAR,
Mumbai
Join madrasa, why sit for tough CBSE board exam? (Organiser, 11-1-2009); Your critical view about the pro-Muslim decision of the UPA government to recognise the Islamic religious schools—madrasas’s graduation certificate—as equal to the CBSE certificate and hence eligible for higher professional degree courses is very commendable. It should be opposed by organising Hindu mass agitations. To start, let one of the Hindu organisations should take up the issues to the Supreme Court. The Indian Constitution is a democratic secular constitution. According to Oxford Dictionary, if the affairs of any religious group and its assets are controlled and directed by a government, elected on purely secular votes, it is not a secular or non-religious government.
—RAVI VERMA,
28, DD Village, Kochi
Needle of suspicion points to ex-IAS Congress leader (Organiser, 11-1-2009); The article is a clear documentary evidence that ex-IAS officer RK Nayak hatched and executed the conspiracy of murder of Swamiji. The way he made arrangements of vacating hostels in the campus of NISWAS, closing of Janavani daily newspaper office just one day before the murder speaks volume about his involvement in the murder and above all he deliberately left Kandhamal on the same day. All the local media and investigating agencies have named RK Nayak behind the murder of Swamiji. Even Swamiji himself had written that RK Nayak had instigated attack on him on 26-12-07 and he was conspiring to kill him. This is more than enough to arrest and punish the ex-IAS officer.
—PRADMOD PRABHAKAR VALSANGKAR,
HNo 1-10-81, Dwarakapuram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad
The brigade that undermines national security (Organiser, 11-1-2009); I do not agree with Shri MV Kamath’s assertion that violence is not necessarily the only way to defeat an enemy. Non-violence is not only life-saving but it is grace abounding. Some Indians have a false sense of complacency that Gandhian concept of non-violence has achieved miraculous result. On the contrary, it has failed to achieve anything tangible, other than publicity value.
—NIKUNJA BIHARI HAOLDAR,
Gutri, 24-North Pargana, WB
Pak textbooks build hate culture against India (Organiser, 11-1-2009); Information given by Shri Arif Mohammed Khan in his article is revealing. Such good persons among Muslims are rare, who dare to write facts against Pakistan. Shri Khan would certainly be looked down upon as a kafir by Muslim fundamentalists who guide the Muslim masses. The hate culture in textbooks of Pakistan coupled with Islamic teachings of hatred, both being promoted by Pakistan government, have made the ordinary Pakistani brute to harm India and the Hindus in all possible manners.
—ANAND PRAKASH,
72/Sector 8, Panchkula
The Year That Was (Organiser, 4-1-2009); In this editorial you have briefed the important events of the year 2008. The authorities of India should go deep into them so that shortcomings on various fronts like inflation, public distribution system, repeated price rising of essential commodities, law and order problems etc, may not be repeated in the current year 2009. Other authors have tried their best to point out pros and cons of present situation of the nation. But the use of such advise will be there if one has will to do something for the betterment of nation and its citizens. This is true that where there is will there is way. Shri Mohan Bhagwat has rightly stated that vote-bank politics is weakening the nation.
—LAKSHMI CHAND,
Bhangri, Kasoli, Solan
Terror targets economy (Organiser, 4-1-2009); The writer says that we have never tried to discover the fine cultural thread that binds India together. The single name “Hindu” unites the people with diverse cultures, and religions, living in the single land called Bharat. Those who came later, after centuries of common living, should have, in natural course, developed love for the family with the home Hindustan and the people Hindu. Instead we observe emergence of divisive attitude even among the Hindus. This is the age of reason and disintegration.
—SD LAGHATE,
Sankat Mochan Ashram, Ram Krishna Puran-6, New Delhi
The cure for terrorism is Virat Brihad Hindutva (Organiser, 18-1-2008); Dr. Rudra Pratap Chattopadhyaya in his letter has willfully quoted a piece of the verse 2/98 from the Quran and derived wrong conclusion. I quote the full text of the said verse: “Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His Angles and Prophets, to Gabriel and Michael, Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject faith.” I invite the readers to compare the text with the concocted version given by the writer.
—TANVEER FATIMA,
Sandesh Bhavanam, Lakkad Kota, Chatta Bazaar, Hydarabad
Counter terror with coercive diplomacy and covert operation (Organiser, 4-1-2009); The 26/11 Mumbai carnage has convinced the whole segment of aam aadmi that counter-jehad operation is too serious a business to be left in the hands of netas and babus. In the aftermath of the 26/11 Mumbai carnage, the aam aadmi, therefore, gave the order of the boot the guilty netas and babus. The aam aadmi was thus empowered and decided that from now onward the war against the jehadis is a war of the people, by the people and for the people. How one can conduct the war and what should be our plan of the battle? Firstly each one of us should maintain a daily diary to note down all the jehadi-related inputs and rumours that we hear. These may be of local interest or of wider interests. Naturally we should give precedence to inputs that are of local interest. We may then discuss these inputs within our family circle and within our intimate circle of friends. We can then take further action according to consensus. If on a particular date there is no input, still it is equally important that we make a nil entry for that day. Secondly children must be sent to voluntary social organisation like NCC where training in character building is given. This will create a broad base of future citizens who will have quick response to face unexpected situations Thirdly adults should form vigilance committees in their local areas. Vigilance patrols should go out regularly.
—DR. AN BANERJEE,32, Sagar Tarang, 15/A, Khan Seaface, Worli, Mumbai
For the first time the anguish of the general Indian Muslims over the Mumbai mayhem has become visible. They take out processions in protest, observed a subdued Eid and their prominent religious personalities declared that killing of innocents cannot be glorified as jehadi acts. Previously also there were voices of protest. But they appear to be exceptional and not being listened to by their co-religionist fundamentalists. They would do better if they come out with a declaration that non-Muslims, being non-believers, are not murtads. Similarly Muslims who have accepted the modern-day need of co-existing with non-Muslims are also not murtads. This clarification will go a long way to dispel the false notion of performing a jehadi act and attaining jannat thereby. The idea of religious expansionism is anachronistic in 21st century.
—NK DAS GUPTA,
12/D/6, DPP Road, Kolkata
All terror cases should be tacked under military court martial, since it is the military who have suffered the most due to the terror. No civil court should have the power to review the same. The sentences should be awarded within the quickest possible time. The bodies of the terrorists should be handed over to hospitals for dissection studies. There is no point in giving part of our land for burying.
—BV RAO,
No 66, Netaji Layout, BCC Colony, Attiguppe, Vijaynagar, Bangalore
Indo-Pak animosity: A way out (Organiser, 4-1-2009); It is fallacious to assume that Muslims are not part of the mainstream. The first question is, what on earth is mainstream? If it is some kind of monolithic superhighway expecting everyone to follow a jet speed, then why does everyone need to enter it? In India, despite having such superhighways we still have bullock carts and camel carts slowly traversing all the wrong and right paths and no one minds. What I mean is, let us first define what is mainstream?
—YOUSUF SAEED,
New Delhi
RBI to prod banks to lend: In view of the reduction of the REPO rate to 5.5 per cent and the lowering of the CRR and SLR, there is a reasonable infusion of liquidity into the economic system. This should automatically result into increased bank lending. However, this has not been done. Hence what is absolutely essential for the RBI is not to push the banks to lend money but to prod them to do so by treading a fine line. However, a very important question that arises at this moment is whether the bank can reduce the deposit interest rates without causing a fight of deposits to 8 per cent tax-free small savings schemes. Hence, the judgment called for on the part of the banks is to make a fine balance while remembering that lending by them is absolutely essential to service their depositors.
—RN LAKHOTIA,
S-228, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi
Public Platform: Speak up openly
Falsifying history for political gain (Organiser, 18-1-2009); “Politics is a dirty game”, so is often said, but politicising history is far more dangerous and ominous for the nation. I would like to share my experiences with the readers in this context through this letter. In 1976, during the days of Emergency, I was directed by the Haryana government to go through the NCERT textbooks on History meant for classes VI to VIII, namely Ancient India, Medieval India and Modern India, written by Romila Thapar and one or two others and procure their publishing copyrights from the NCERT for introduction of these books in schools in Haryana. I read these books and pointed out a number of sentences needed to be modified in the books. It was purely an apolitical professionally academic exercise done by me. At this time, I do not remember all the objections I raised with the NCERT authorities, but I do remember three objections, I raised with them. The one was on beef-eating by Aryans, the second was their distortion against the facts of slaughter of Guru Tegh Bahadur and the third was their branding of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose as a fascist. At the first instance, the NCERT authorities were adamant and refused to change even a single word in the texts. I met the NCERT authorities several times in this connection. I was told that the authors, Romila Thapar, Bipin Chandra & Co., were not willing to change a single word. I never got a chance to discuss my points with the authors of the books. At the end, I told them bluntly that I would not recommend these books to my department unless you make these modifications and would send my report to my department and leave it to the discretion of the department. Thank God, the better sense prevailed and the NCERT and the authors concerned relented to make some modifications in the texts to be published by Haryana Education Department in 1977 and 1978. However, as an erstwhile teacher, I appeal to the authorities concerned in the states, NCERT and MHRD, not to impose doctored and politically motivated history or their political isms on small innocent children in schools and free the school system from the strangulating grip of the academic mafia, presently masquerading as progressive educationists and intellectuals.
—SUDARSHAN KUMAR KAPUR,
Gurgaon, Haryana
A Matter Of Economics (Organiser, 18-1-2009); January 7, 2009 will go down as a black day in corporate India for this was the day India was hit by its first major market/corporate scandal leading to the collapse of the stock of a major Indian IT corporate house. Ramlinga Raju, founder and Chairman of Satyam Computer Services Ltd, India’s fourth largest IT services company, admitted to fraud and inflating the revenue and costs and resigned from the company and the board. Raju admitted that he falsified the account books at Satyam. The $1.04 billion listed in assets is non-existent according to Raju reports The New York Times. Raju’s claim that neither he nor his family benefitted and got any “rupee” from Satyam in all these years is not lost on those who are reporting and reading about the scandal. The irony of the meaning of Satyam has been highlighted by many media reports. Satyam is derived from the Sanskrit word for truth and honesty.
—KP DESHMUKH,
Vadner, Nashik
I do agree with whatever you said in your column. If we (India) want to project to the world as clean and really serious about handling corruption, it is high time our officials acted and framed strict rules from hereafter and put an end to the chalta hai attitude. And our politicians and other higher officials will keep on going back to corruption until and unless there comes a force, out of the common man’s world, which instils fear into wrong-doers. I hope there comes a movement in our country, one day, which will put an end to the corruption and strive towards the progress with unity, integrity and honesty. Then, I predict that India will be respected not only by its people but by the entire world.
—SHEKHAR BURRA
by e-mail
It is very sad to see a well-regarded company fall because of one individual’s quest for fame. Wall Street Journal mentioned that Mr. Raju always felt that he was not given the same respect as the other majors and I have a feeling that it drove him to overstate revenues, profits and thereby cash flows. I feel sadder for all those hard-working and loyal employees. Satyam is known to have the lowest attrition rate and this will definitely impact employee loyalty even more and across all Indian companies. Employees will trust less and less their employers. I only hope things are cleaned up fast. Having seen how companies like Enron and many others have unravelled, it may be wishful thinking on my part.
—P THAMMINENI,
Padmnabh Nagar, Bangalore
This was not the first corporate scandal in India. What is different about Satyam is the magnitude and scale and the fact that accounting and other errors went undetected for so long. India has one of the most complex legal landscapes to do business. Then there is the fact Satyam listed on the US and European stock exchanges to. How could there be failures at so many levels? Satyam will not be the first corporate scandal if you go by what has happened in the business history of other free-market economies and the scandal skeletons that are strewn in their landscape. Scandals are symptoms that something is wrong with the system and the system needs to get fixed. The system consists of people, who are politicians, bureaucrats, business people, lawyers etc. They are the one who come up with a set of rules and procedures etc. It is also important to instil a value of ethics and trust. When greed takes over, you will notice that the first casualty is your ethics and integrity. Once you have lost your ethical compass it is very difficult to regain, I suspect, but hopefully I am wrong.
—P MALLESHWARAN,
Raghvendra Nagar, Karim Nagar, Andhra Pradesh
Don’t be blind to Hamas terror while commenting on Gaza strike (Organiser, 18-1-2009); Israel has won all its unprovoked wars so far, but it has not been permitted to win the peace. The other world powers restrained Israel from completing the victory and, therefore, the peace. Traditionally, when a country is victorious, it occupies the defeated country until a regime, friendly to the victor, is installed. In World War II, Germany, Japan and Italy were neutralised and now exist in peace with the Allies. Israel was never given that privilege, and so the conflict will continue. Israel will never accept defeat; its enemies call for its nonexistence. It will resort to the ultimate weapon instead.
—P BHASKAR,
Kukapalli Colony, Hyderabad
Join madrasa, why sit for tough CBSE board exams? (Organiser, 11-1-2009); You have traced all loopholes in your editorial. The need of the hour is to provide education to all citizens, irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion, etc. By doing so unity of the nation and society is possible. There should not be majority or minority system as tool of catching votes only. If the rulings parties are not serious, then the opposition should discharge their duties in the national interest. In foreign countries, such type of only minority education is not prevalent. It is only in India where divide and rule policy, inherited from British government, is still prevalent. In the long run, heavy cost will have to be paid for such disparity.
—LAKSHMI CHAND,
Bandh, Bhangari, Solan
Jammu win boosts BJP (Organiser, 11-1-2009); The BJP emerged as a major political force in Jammu and Kashmir, winning 11 of the 87 seats. The party had only one seat in the outgoing assembly. Its best-ever performance had been in the 1996 polls, when it bagged eight seats. All 11 seats were obtained out of the Jammu region’s tally of 37, since it has no presence in the Valley. It won 7 seats in Jammu, three in Kathua and one in Reasi district. For a party that lost the elections in Rajasthan and Delhi earlier this month, the Jammu results have come as a great consolation. Ten of the 11 seats were wrested from the Congress, while one seat was taken from the National Conference.
—ANEEK PARMAR,
Station Road, Bhavnagar, Gujarat
The BJP rode the crest of a wave of resentment against the previous Congress-PDP coalition, which was perceived by Jammu-dwellers as being biased in favour of the Kashmir Valley in the protracted dispute earlier last year over the allotment of land to the Sri Amarnath Shrine Board. Many of its local leaders played key roles in the land-related agitation. However, BJP general secretary Arun Jaitley, who handled the party’s Jammu agitation, insisted that the Amarnath issue was not the sole factor behind the BJP’s win. The BJP is seen as representing the aspirations of the people of Jammu, who have suffered years of discrimination. The credit for this performance of BJP goes to party’s cadres and the people of Jammu.
—SK JINDAL,
Mandi Road, Hisar
Doing good: The limits of appeasement (Organiser, 11-1-2009); Unless we successfully reorient our misguided policy of appeasement, India will lose the soul of the nation. Congress has swallowed Hindus by hypnotism of minorityism. To combat it, proactive-majorityism is the weapon. Hindus should be inspired by highlighting the heroic deeds of Ranapratap, Rana Sanga, Shivaji Maharaj, Subhas Chandra Bose, Veer Savarkar, etc, in the media.
—KALIDAS DE,
Dewanpara, Sunhat, Balasore, Orissa
A strategy to deter terrorism (Organiser, 4-1-2009); Dr Subramanian Swamy has very correctly mentioned in his article that core countries of our strategic planning have to be those, who have been identified by Osama bin Laden as the enemies of Islam:- US, Israel and India. The basic problem with our secular rulers of India is that they have been allergic to USA and Israel, and are all along working for the benefit of Islamic and Communist countries, with complete disregard for national interests. In fact the definition of secularism in India is appeasement of Muslims and hatred for Hindus.
—ANAND PRAKASH,
72/Sector-8, Panchkula
The article is highly educative and timely but which political party is today ready to sacrifice power for the sake of saving this country from pan-Islamic forces financing terrorism? Specially when it is the case of Congress, which divided the nation purely to come into power, and left parties that supported this tragic partition. UPA is an alliance of wilful traitors who took no concrete action against terrorists or those who are promoting terrorism. The only way out is to politically liquidate the paid agents of anti-India forces.
—PRAMOD PRABHAKAR VALSANGKAR,
Dwarakapuram, Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad
Islamic largesse on media in eastern India (Organiser 18-1- 2009); I am surprised at the myopic tendency of the writer to dub the words Islamic and Muslim depicting some sense, which is opposed to national interest. If about twenty per cent population of the country is looked down in such a manner, it would actually lead to anti-national phobia among the non-Muslims only.
—ATM ANWAR,
22-7-499, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad
Indo-Pak animosity: A way out (Organiser, 4-1-2009); The terror attacks cast a long shadow over a spate of confidence-building measures taken by the two sides to thaw a long freeze in bilateral ties. The Mumbai terror attack drew international ire against Pakistan-based terror groups and India asked Pakistan to shut down the entire terrorist network operating on its soil. Relations between India and Pakistan, which appeared to be on course towards normalisation after return of civilian rule in Islamabad, almost touched a nadir at the year end in the aftermath of Pakistani terrorists carrying out a carnage in Mumbai.
—RAMESH TOMAR,
Kali Bari, Tarapur, Silchar
In spite of setbacks such as the recent Mumbai terror attack we need to continue with the peace process, as this will benefit both countries. The London blasts have shown us that terrorists can attack anywhere and at any time. So cooperation among all political parties and media support is important. There have been hiccups in the Pakistan-India peace process in the past and we will overcome the current problems too though it may take a little bit longer.
—S SRIDHAR,
Vardharaja Puram, Chennai
Porous Bangla border, a security threat (Organiser, 4-1-2009); The north-eastern region of the country is sitting on a powder keg as Pakistan’s ISI has been able to make substantial inroads into the region by covertly using the Bangladesh territory for carrying out its operation. The illustrated portrait of widened Bangladesh border and inexplicably increasing population of border India massively by Bangladeshi infiltrators in the north-east, is reason enough for being construed as ‘cancer’! The intelligence, which has been sent in to the Home Ministry, said the situation continues to be grim, as the region falls in ISI’s top priority.
—AYAN PRAMANIK,
27/1B, Bidhan Sarani, Swastika
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Islamic Terrorists want to destroy Indian culture
By Subramanian Swamy
The Islamic terrorists in India have only one goal: To convert the Dar-ul-Harab India of today into the Dar-ul-Islam of tomorrow. Judging by the secret writings in circulation amongst clerics in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim clerics consider as unacceptable the failure of 800 years of Islamic rule in India to convert India into a 100 per cent Muslim nation, as they did in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt etc.
In 1989, to obtain the release of Mufti Mohammed Sayeed’s daughter, Rubaiyya who had been kidnapped by terrorists, five terrorists in Indian jails were set free by the VP Singh’s government. This made these criminals in the eyes of Kashmiri separatists and fence sitters as heroes, as they had brought India’s ‘Hindu establishment’ on it’s knees.
In the case of terrorist menace, because of their ideological and religious beliefs, many terrorists place extreme value on their political objectives relative to other ends (e.g., life and property). For this reason, it appears impossible that a deterrer could hold at risk something of sufficient value to terrorists such that their behavior is affected.
The Islamic terrorists in India have only one goal: To convert the Dar-ul-Harab India of today into the Dar-ul-Islam of tomorrow. Judging by the secret writings in circulation amongst clerics in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim clerics consider as unacceptable the failure of 800 years of Islamic rule in India to convert India into a 100 per cent Muslim nation, as they did in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt etc. Leave alone 100 per cent. Akhand Hindustan could not be converted more than 25 per cent. Thus, it was a passive victory of the Hindus and a blow to the imagined invincibility of Islam.
Hence, Islamic theologists consider the US a meddling nation that is corrupting the social morals of Muslims, Israel to represents a reversal of Islamic conquest of territory in West Asia by Jews who were hated by Prophet Mohammed, and Hindustan a challenge to the invincibility of Islam.
India has a huge population, and worse has begun to develop quickly. Thus India must be targeted by terrorising Hindus and make them to submit. The mad mullahs are thus on a rampage, and we Hindus have to wake up to the real challenge of Mumbai 26/11 and all that preceded it.
Therefore, recognising that targeting of Hindus is the political goal of the Islamic terrorists, while Muslims of India are largely just passive spectators, and that the foreign patrons of Islamic terrorists are beginning to engage in terrorist acts that could put Muslims against Hindus in nation¬wide conflagration and possible civil war as in Serbia and Bosnia, hence the first lesson to be learnt from recent history is that for tackling terrorism India should recognise that the Hindu is the target, and that Muslims of South Asia are being programmed to slide into suicide against Hindus.
The recent of Al Qaeda video tapes in Bihar seeking recruits for terrorism against the ‘;US-lsrael-India axis” is an indication of this. It is to undermine the Hindu psyche and create fear of civil war that terror attacks are organised. And hence since the Hindu is the target, Hindus must collectively respond as Hindus against the terrorist and not feel individually isolated, or worse be complacent because he or she is not personally affected. If one Hindu dies merely because he or she was a Hindu, then a bit of every Hindu also dies. This is a necessary part of an essential menial attitude of a virat Hindu [for fuller discussion of the concept of virat Hindu, see Hindus Under Siege: The Way Out, Haranand, 2006] required in formulating a deterring strategy against terrorism which is Hindu-centric in it’s targets.
Therefore we have to have a collective mindset as Hindus to stand against the terrorist. In this response, Muslims and Christians of India can join the Hindus if they genuinely feel for the Hindus. That they really do so feel, cannot be believed unless they acknowledge with pride that though they may be Muslims or Christians, their ancestors are Hindus. It is not easy for them to acknowledge this ancestry even though that is the truth, because the Muslim Mullah and Christian Missionary would consider it as unacceptable according to the Koran and the Bible.
That realisation of oneness with Hindus would also dilute the religious fervour in their faith and thus create a mental option for their possible re-conversion and return to the Hinduism. Hence, their religious leaders preach hatred and violence against the kafir and the pagan i.e.. the Hindu [for example read Chapter 8 verse 12 of the Koran] to keep the faith of their followers. The Islamic terrorist outfits, e.g., the SIMI being the latest has already resolved that India is Dar-ul-Harab. and they are committed to make it Dar-ul-Islam. That makes them free of any moral compunction whatsoever in dealing with Hindus, including in massacring them.
Bul still, if any Muslim or Christian does so acknowledge his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj. which constitutes Hindustan. India that is Hindustan is thus a nation of Hindus and those others whose ancestors are Hindus. Even Parsi and Jews in India have Hindu ancestors. This is the true identity of India, known as Hindustan. Others, those who refuse to so acknowledge or those foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration can remain in India, but should not have voting rights [which means they cannot be elected representatives].
Hence, to begin with, any policy to combat terrorism must first begin with requiring each and every Hindu becoming collectively committed or a virat Hindu. By this it is meant that it is not enough commitment if one individually claims to be Hindu, or goes to temples, does pujas, and celebrates festivals. That is not sufficient to be a committed or virat Hindu. To be a virat Hindu one must have a Hindu mindset.
The second lesson for combating the terrorism that we face today is: since demoralising the Hindu and undermining the Hindu foundation of India in order to destroy the Hindu civilisation, is the goal of terrorists in India we must never capitulate and never concede any demand of the terrorists.
Terrorists are encouraged by appeasement but never satisfied by it. Therefore, no matter how many Hindus have to die for it, the basic policy has to be: never yield to any demand of the terrorists. That necessary resolve has not been shown in our recent history. Instead ever since we conceded Pakistan in 1947 under duress, we have been mostly yielding time and time again.
In 1989, to obtain the release of Mufti Mohammed Sayeed’s daughter, Rubaiyya who had been kidnapped by terrorists, five terrorists in Indian jails were set free by the VP Singh’s government. This made these criminals in the eyes of Kashmiri separatists and fence sitters as heroes, as they had brought India’s ‘Hindu establishment’ on it’s knees. To save Rubaiyya it was not necessary to surrender to terrorist demands. There were other ways. But the then government was capitulationists in outlook, or perhaps the then Home Minister was in cahoots with the terrorists.
The third lesson to be learnt is that whatever and however small the terrorist incident, the nation must retaliate—nor by measured and”sober” responses but by massive retaliation. For example, when Ayodhya Temple was sought to be attacked, or the Institute of Science in Bangalore was targeted, these were not big terrorist incidents but we should have massively retaliated. Our Intelligence agencies keep telling us that we have clinching proof of terrorist training camps in PoK and Bangladesh, and if that is so, we should bomb them by despatching our airforce. There is some evidence that the US agency, the FBI has presented to a district court in California satellite photos that establish that five terror training camps exist near Balakot in northeast Pakistan, Indian government claims proof which has not been made public that there are 57 camps in Pakistani held territory and 36 camps in Bangladesh.
Many are advising the Hindus to deal with the root “cause” of terrorism rather than concentrating on eradicating terrorists by retaliation. And pray what is the root “cause”?
According to bleeding heart liberals, terrorists are born or bred because of illiteracy, poverty, oppression, and discrimination. They argue that instead of eliminating them, the root cause of these four disabilities in society should be removed. Only then terrorism will disappear. Moreover they argue, terrorists cannot be deterred by force since they are irrational, willing to commit suicide, and have no ‘return address’.
Searching the backgrounds of some of the world’s most notorious Muslim terrorists; we find:
- Bin Laden, the son of a Saudi billionaire, studied engineering.
- His deputy Ayman al-Zawahri is an eye surgeon.
- Mohamed Atta. the son of a lawyer, earned a master’s degree in urban planning.
- 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed graduated from an American college with an engineering degree.
- Flight 93 pilot Ziad Jarrah’s father is a Beirut bureaucrat who drove a Mercedes and put his son through prep school.
Some of the London bombers had college degrees. One was a school teacher. Another’s father owned a store.
Many of the Saudi hijackers were the best and brightest in their towns.
Hani Hanjour who crashed the plane into the Pentagon, studied English at the University of Arizona. Family members were wealthy merchants from Taif, a resort city in Saudi Arabia.
Most Palestinian suicide bombers have come from middle-class homes.
They didn’t do what they were expected to do to escape poverty.
And some of the most radical imams in America have doctorates.
Muslim Fundamentalists have an education and an economic future, yet they still terrorise hate. They’re literate enough to liberally interpret their holy books, yet they still embrace jihad against kafirs.
The fourth lesson to learn is that more than the activities of the terrorists in India, the more sinister corrosion of our nation state occurs from within. This corrosion provides ‘a force multiplier’ to the terrorists.
That is, the terrorists are able to leverage the influence of highly placed individuals in the government, media and academia, who have been compromised by the terrorists and blackmailed on sex, drug money and illegitimate favours, into collaborating with them.
One thing is for sure—terrorists in India of all hues and background have their compromised moles in the India’s establishment, and hence no anti-terrorist policy can succeed unless these fifth column elements are weeded out. The IB/RAW/MI/CRPF all have files on them and so identifying them is no problem. The political support these traitors have to withdrawn and some have to be made an example of.
It is thus a ridiculous idea that terrorists cannot be deterred because they are irrational, willing to die, and have no ‘return address. Our inference here is that terrorist master-minds have political goals and a method in their madness. An effective strategy to deter terrorism is therefore to defeat those political goals and to rubbish them by counter-terrorist action.
(Concluded)
(The writer is former Union Law Minister and can be contacted at swamy@post.harvard.edu)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
